Back around Oct 15, Ian summarized his objections to letting cite
refer to the primary source of the information, rather than being an
oddly named synoymy for i class=title.
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Jim Jewett wrote:
I hate to be so repetitive, but why is that beneficial? What is the
semantic
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, tjeddo wrote:
I believe that the current HTML5 spec is heading in the right direction
by narrowing the meaning of the cite element compared to its ambiguous
use in HTML documents in the past. Overloading the meaning of the cite
element further by using it to
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Gordon P. Hemsley gphems...@gmail.com wrote:
I also propose allowing parenthetical citations and footnote markers
(as is used in the various W3C/WHATWG specifications) to also be
marked up with cite, though I'm not sure if TabAtkins agrees with me
on that
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:33 PM, David Workman workm...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know about others, but that just looks ugly to me (the repetition of
'cite' looks unnecessary). I know elegance isn't crucial, but given the
choice between cite for= and cite cite= I'd go for the former.
As a
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:51 PM, David Workman workm...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that href would be better than src due to the reasons you gave.
However, rather than adding a new attribute of alias, could cite instead
be given a name attribute that works similar to radio button names in forms
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:13 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 there
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 there
(I'm ignoring all of the unproductive back-and-forth that has occurred
thus far. This is meant to start the discussion off fresh.)
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
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 4:15 PM, Erik Vorhes e...@textivism.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Gordon P. Hemsley gphems...@gmail.com wrote:
I also propose allowing parenthetical citations and footnote markers
(as is used in the various W3C/WHATWG specifications) to also be
marked up
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Erik Vorhes e...@textivism.com wrote:
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,
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
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Erik Vorhes e...@textivism.com wrote:
I suppose a allows for more functionality in current UAs, but this
is an interesting proposition, especially if there were a way to
crosslink cite used in this way to the original source (or whatever
it would point to).
2009/10/6 Hugh Guiney hugh.gui...@gmail.com
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Erik Vorhes e...@textivism.com wrote:
I suppose a allows for more functionality in current UAs, but this
is an interesting proposition, especially if there were a way to
crosslink cite used in this way to the
Smylers wrote:
I wrote:
I think that gets at the root of the problem with cite. Most people
don't read the spec, or even know where to find it. cite isn't common
enough to just copy by example, and it turns out to be ambiguous as
the name of an element or attribute.
But why would somebody
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Erik Vorhes wrote:
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
What is it?
and with the removal of the dialog element (of which I was unaware
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 there is some semantic value to the name being more than
just a name, yes.
Is there?
Yes
What is it?
cite
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 an
Jim Jewett writes:
In
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-September/023005.html,
Ian quoted Erik Vorhes as writing:
Put another way, if you had no prior knowledge of the current
HTML5 definition of cite (and perhaps any other specification's
definition of the
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 an argument for people's names _in general_ being marked up;
it's an
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Erik Vorhes wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Earlier, when justifying why you changed the definition of cite
from HTML 4.01, you said:
I don't think it makes sense to use the cite element to refer to
people, because
Am Mittwoch, den 16.09.2009, 09:16 + schrieb Ian Hickson:
Names aren't generally styled, certainly not in italics, so that isn't the
problem solved.
Important names are sometimes styled through use of small-caps, though
it may be that this is an older / rare convention and not applicable
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 16.09.2009, 09:16 + schrieb Ian Hickson:
Names aren't generally styled, certainly not in italics, so that isn't the
problem solved.
Important names are sometimes styled through use of small-caps, though
it may be that
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)
In
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-September/023005.html,
Ian quoted Erik Vorhes as writing:
Put another way, if you had no prior knowledge of the current HTML5
definition of cite (and perhaps any other specification's definition
of the element), what would seem to be
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
Dear Ian,
Here are a few more thoughts regarding the definition of cite in HTML5.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Earlier, when justifying why you changed the definition of cite from
HTML 4.01, you said:
I don't think it makes sense to use the cite
Erik Vorhes writes:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Earlier, when justifying why you changed the definition of cite
from HTML 4.01, you said:
I don't think it makes sense to use the cite element to refer
to people, because typographically
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
On 16/08/2009 12:21, Ian Hickson wrote:
Italics is the right format for almost all titles of works.
How are you measuring that?
For example, chapters in collections and articles are works and have
titles, and those titles aren't
Oops. This has been sitting in my outbox for a while, so it's a
response to somewhat old messages, but I think it still has some
value, especially the examples taken from Philip Taylor's data and
elsewhere on the web.
On Jul 19, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
Certainly there are
On Aug 16, 2009, at 7:21 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Erik Vorhes wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Erik Vorhes wrote:
It is often the most semantically appropriate element for marking
up
a name
There is no need to
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, Erik Vorhes wrote:
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
On 16/08/2009 12:21, Ian Hickson wrote:
Italics is the right format for almost all titles of works.
How are you measuring that?
For example, chapters in collections and articles are works and have
titles, and those titles aren't typically distinguished with italics, at
least in English.
Erik Vorhes writes:
So the definition of cite in HTML5 should currently be title of
work or something that could be construed as a title where one doesn't
exist in the explicit sense of 'title.' But not people's names, even
if they're the citation, because using cite for citations is silly.
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 2:26 PM, Erik Vorhese...@textivism.com wrote:
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
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
Erik Vorhes writes:
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
Erik Vorhes writes:
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.
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 mentioning it in
passing.
No, that actually is a citation,
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 Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Erik Vorhes wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
If cite is exclusively for titles, it shouldn't be called cite.
Sure, but we're about 15 years too late for that.
Well, no: the as far as I have been able to determine, every HTML
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
See http://www.four24.com/; note near the top of the source:
blockquote id=verse cite=John 4:24...
My statement stands, on the aggregate:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Philip Taylor wrote:
See
Hixie asked:
What is the problem solved by allowing names to be marked up in the
same manner as titles?
They are both entities being referenced (cited). It seems arbitrary to
me to forbid referencing names with the cite element. HTML 4 already
allows it, authors would have to change
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
If cite is exclusively for titles, it shouldn't be called cite.
Sure, but we're about 15 years too late for that.
Well, no: the as far as I have been able to determine, every HTML
specification (before HTML5) did not limit this
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Erik Vorhese...@textivism.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
In practice, people haven't been confused between these two attributes as
far as we can tell. People who use cite seem to use it for titles, and
people who
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Kristof
Zelechovskigiecr...@stegny.2a.pl wrote:
1. If you cite a person, the person you cite does not become a citation
because of that. Putting the person inside the CITE element distorts the
meaning.
If you are citing a person (either as someone worth
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Erik Vorhes wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
I don't understand why it would be more useful. Having an element for
the typographic purpose of marking up titles seems more useful than an
element for the purpose of indicating what
On Jun 5, 2009, at 3:53 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I don't really understand what problem this is solving.
HTML4 actually defined cite more like what you describe above; we
changed it to be a title of work element rather than a citation
element because that's actually how people were using it.
I
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Brian
Campbellbrian.p.campb...@dartmouth.edu wrote:
On Jun 5, 2009, at 3:53 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I don't really understand what problem this is solving.
HTML4 actually defined cite more like what you describe above; we
changed it to be a title of work
Chris wrote:
If more then titles means other uses of the CITE tag, as evidenced
in [1],
they do not form any pattern. They look more like random errors.
I've used the CITE element fairly extensively on my blog, *mostly* for
titles (books, films) but also for people. If it's a proper noun,
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
I don't understand why it would be more useful. Having an element for the
typographic purpose of marking up titles seems more useful than an element
for the purpose of indicating what is a citation.
Why is it more useful?
If
The CITE tag does not mean I am a citation. It is as confusing for
novices as can be but the specification cannot do anything about it because
it is already established. It means Citing what? and it does not mean
Citing whom?. A book title is the obvious answer to this question. As I
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 would assume follow the HTML 4.01 spec) would
be mistaken in
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Erik Vorhese...@textivism.com 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
If more then titles means other uses of the CITE tag, as evidenced in [1],
they do not form any pattern. They look more like random errors.
If more then titles means title and something else, I do not see much
harm in such syntax.
Chris
[1] http://philip.html5.org/data/cite.txt.
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Andrew W. Hagen wrote:
That was interesting about the history of the cite element.
The import of my proposed change is that it would make the cite element
much more useful than it would be than if it were limited to titles.
For example, take a page listing numerous
Regarding your example:
cite class=bibliography-item
Smith, John. iThe Triumph of HTML 5/i. 2015.
New York: Faraway Press. /cite
I think we can agree that one could use such a syntax outside of running
text, as in appendices, footnotes and the like. There is no much harm
On 6/6/2009 4:10 AM, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
Instead of:
liqMan is the only animal that laughs and weeps./qbr / --
citeWilliam Hazlitt/cite/li
Consider:
liqMan is the only animal that laughs and weeps./qbr /
(William Hazlitt)/li
Reads equally good, if not better.
Instead of:
liqMan is the only animal that laughs and weeps./qbr / --
citeWilliam Hazlitt/cite/li
Consider:
liqMan is the only animal that laughs and weeps./qbr /
(William Hazlitt)/li
Reads equally good, if not better.
Bibliographic references are a topic of its own, and it is not
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Andrew W. Hagen wrote:
The cite element should be slightly changed. Under this proposal, the
cite element should be used only for titles of works, but may be used
for other things that web authors may wish to cite. This conforms with
how the cite element is used in
On Jun 5, 2009, at 10:53, Ian Hickson wrote:
HTML4 actually defined cite more like what you describe above; we
changed it to be a title of work element rather than a citation
element because that's actually how people were using it.
Furthermode, according to a co-author of HTML 2.0, it was
Ian Hickson wrote:
I don't really understand what problem this is solving. . . .
That was interesting about the history of the cite element.
The import of my proposed change is that it would make the cite element
much more useful than it would be than if it were limited to titles.
For
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Kristof Zelechovski
giecr...@stegny.2a.pl wrote:
The HTML is required to produce a meaningful rendering without CSS. The
level of reader surprise at the default rendering of
cite Aristotle/cite said
is high and such markup should be verbally deprecated.
The level of surprise of an article cited as a book is far smaller than a
real author looking like a fictitious person, as in the default rendering of
CITE Aristotle/CITE said.
Not everybody is an expert in scholarly style guides but most readers feel
the difference between direct speech
Rendering the name Aristotle in italic by itself, if not used for
emphasis, indicates that the name is used in an oblique, indirect way,
perhaps referring to a fictitious person or a nickname, the person referred
to as Aristotle by a 3rd party. Please do not ask me why this is so; I
shall not be
The cite element should be slightly changed. Under this proposal, the
cite element should be used only for titles of works, but may be used
for other things that web authors may wish to cite. This conforms with
how the cite element is used in practice.
In the current HTML 5 specification, the
For a string like:
!doctype htmlcitediv/citeTEST
The current text seems to suggest the following DOM (not including
everything here):
cite
div
TEST
Because /cite is not a phrasing nor a formatting element the end tag
won't be ignored and nodes will be popped from the stack.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
For a string like:
!doctype htmlcitediv/citeTEST
The current text seems to suggest the following DOM (not including everything
here):
cite
div
TEST
Because /cite is not a phrasing nor a formatting element [...]
It is a
69 matches
Mail list logo
