canmove, Confirmed users
2,885
edits
HTML/cite: Difference between revisions
HTML
(→names of speakers: esc a cite) |
(HTML) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Welcome to the Mozilla wiki page on the [[ | Welcome to the Mozilla wiki page on the [[HTML]] <cite> element. Please feel free to contribute new test pages or new sections. -- [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] | ||
{{stub}} | {{stub}} | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
* Restore <code><cite></code> element for names of speakers | * Restore <code><cite></code> element for names of speakers | ||
** see: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Cite#Speaker | ** see: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Cite#Speaker | ||
** provide follow-ups / answers to the common arguments given against restoring cite for speakers: | ** provide follow-ups / answers to the common arguments given against restoring cite for speakers (now reposted to WHATWG wiki as well - http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Cite_element#Counter-arguments ) | ||
*** "The purpose of <nowiki><cite></nowiki> was to create a semantic-looking alias for <nowiki><i></nowiki> in order to cater for Chicago Manual of Style-compliant italicized titles of work." | *** "The purpose of <nowiki><cite></nowiki> was to create a semantic-looking alias for <nowiki><i></nowiki> in order to cater for Chicago Manual of Style-compliant italicized titles of work." - [http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20070607#l-797 citation: DanC in IRC] [[User:Hsivonen|Hsivonen]] 11:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
**** This also sounds like an argument from "theoretical purity" or at best "specifiers", whereas the current usage evidence shows that "authors" have seen fit to purpose cite for speakers, and thus per the [http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies priority of constituencies HTML design principle] which prefers authors over specifiers over theoretical purity, we should restore cite for speakers. | **** This also sounds like an argument from "theoretical purity" or at best "specifiers", whereas the current usage evidence shows that "authors" have seen fit to purpose cite for speakers, and thus per the [http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies priority of constituencies HTML design principle] which prefers authors over specifiers over theoretical purity, we should restore cite for speakers. | ||
*** "Since speakers aren't italicized typically, using <nowiki><cite></nowiki> for them doesn't really make sense. " | *** "Since speakers aren't italicized typically, using <nowiki><cite></nowiki> for them doesn't really make sense. " | ||
| Line 21: | Line 20: | ||
*** "DanC said allowing <nowiki><cite></nowiki> for speakers was a bug in HTML 4 that happened because he was asleep at the wheel." | *** "DanC said allowing <nowiki><cite></nowiki> for speakers was a bug in HTML 4 that happened because he was asleep at the wheel." | ||
**** Regardless of what DanC as a <em>specifier</em> may have intended, the authors have widely adopted the usage of cite for speakers, and thus since authors are considered over specifiers, we should prefer author usage over original specifier intent. | **** Regardless of what DanC as a <em>specifier</em> may have intended, the authors have widely adopted the usage of cite for speakers, and thus since authors are considered over specifiers, we should prefer author usage over original specifier intent. | ||
** 2010-08-13 posted to WHATWG list: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-August/027930.html | |||
== see also == | == see also == | ||
* [[ | * [[HTML]] home page | ||