On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Jim Jewett wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Erik Vorhes wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Unless
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Gordon P. Hemsley gphems...@gmail.com wrote:
I was discussing the cite element with TabAtkins on IRC and I
proposed analyzing the actual word 'cite'. Using it as a verb, the
definition of 'cite' applies to quotes/quotations, titles, and people,
depending on the
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:31 PM, tjeddo tje...@gmail.com wrote:
Erik, Just so you are aware in the future, reductio ad absurdum (aka
proof by contradiction)
is a legitimate technique used in mathematics and logic to deductively
prove statements.
I'm not sure your usage of that phrase is
?
rubric and credit (or name) could solve a lot of element rancor
on this list (and this icky IE DOM issue). So count me as +1!
Erik Vorhes
(such as credit or my own attempt to expand the
function of cite) suit your needs?
Erik Vorhes
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:09 AM, Smylers smyl...@stripey.com wrote:
Erik Vorhes writes:
A use-case for person's name in the context of cite:
In reference to many Classical texts one will often refer to the
author in lieu of the title (or in some cases that author's corpus).
That isn't
A few points of clarification:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Unless there is some semantic value to the name being more than just a
name, yes.
Is there?
Yes, and with the removal of the dialog element (of which I was
unaware when I sent my last message)
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Bruce Lawson bru...@opera.com wrote:
there would also need to be a comment element
I'd be *slightly* concerned that confusion could arise between a
comment element and the !-- comment syntax --, at least in
discussion. (I.e., what would HTML comment mean?)
entry
A use-case for person's name in the context of cite:
In reference to many Classical texts one will often refer to the
author in lieu of the title (or in some cases that author's corpus).
E.g.:
pYou should read citeHerodotus/cite./p
Erik
be
useful, allow for cite to provide semantic value (and not just a
styling hook that could just as easily be provided by something like
i class=title), and works perfectly well in all extant browser
implementations.
Sincerely,
Erik Vorhes
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Smylerssmyl...@stripey.com wrote:
As Ian has pointed out, the above is technically non-conforming with
what the HTML 4 spec claims. But it's how I've been using cite for
years, since it makes sense and has a use.
I defy you to show me in the HTML 4.01
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Smylerssmyl...@stripey.com wrote:
For words that you wish to have no distinct presentation from the
surrounding text -- words that readers don't need calling out to them as
being in any way 'special' -- simply don't mark them up.
Interesting point. Should the
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Erik Vorhes wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Not all titles are citations, actually. For example, I've heard of the
/Pirates of Penzance/, but I'm not citing it, just
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Simon Pieterssim...@opera.com wrote:
What is it that is not compatible with which browser?
Any use of legend outside of a fieldset is broken in every
modern browser: IE6-8, Firefox 3-3.5, Safari 3-4, and Opera 9-10b
all break in interesting ways. For more
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Aryeh Gregorsimetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the meaning of compatible with all existing browsers here is
that HTML 5 does not *require* authors to break compatibility with any
existing browser.
I agree completely with your interpretation of the phrase.
Jul 2009, Erik Vorhes wrote:
A new element wouldn't work in legacy UAs, so it wouldn't be as
compelling a solution. Also, cite is already being used for this
purpose.
My preference would be for cite to retain the flexibility it has in
pre-HTML5 specifications, which would include
obvious example.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Erik Vorhes wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Kristof
Zelechovskigiecr...@stegny.2a.pl wrote:
I can imagine two reasons the CITE element cannot be defined as citing
whom:
1. Existing tools may assume it contains a title.
Existing tools (which I
. It does not mean anything to say this is a citation; this definition
is too ambiguous to be useful.
I obviously disagree. cite identifies a title is too narrow a
definition to be useful.
Erik Vorhes
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Ryosuke Niwarn...@google.com wrote:
Does anyone see a serious compatibility issue with adding ol / ul as child
nodes of ol / ul? I feel like not allowing them is more problematic given
the situation.
Part of the reason that browsers handle this--
ul
?
I've cobbled together a demonstration page to address some of these
issues (more clearly, I hope): http://textivism.com/list-items/
Erik Vorhes
.
Since this is supposed to be the case, why shouldn't HTML5 just ditch
cite altogether? (Aside from backward compatibility, which is
beside the point of the question.)
Erik Vorhes
, I don't see the
value in limiting the semantic potential of the cite element in
HTML5.
Erik Vorhes
=1149007
The key point is this: If it's important, it should be in the
content, it shouldn't be generated.
Erik Vorhes
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand,
a simple
code lang=xml/html
could be used to introduce the pre and all the lt; s
This is the one part of the suggestion that I could possibly see being
introduced in the language, but the benefit
an element to preemptively limit its use
only to titles.
Erik Vorhes
current conditions, nor
should it be expected to.
Thanks,
Erik Vorhes
26 matches
Mail list logo
