On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Martin Janecke <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think <mark> is appropriate for what I meant. > > I as the publisher usually don't mean[1] to point a readers attention at > spelling errors by someone I quote, I just want to be able to add semantic > markup that identifies a part of text as deliberately published just the way > it is published.
Indicating where mistakes have been reproduced in transcribed or quoted text seems like a different usage than Charles's application of marking mistakes in editable text for potential correction by the end-user. Bearing in mind: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_a_specification.3F 1. What problem(s) does indicating where mistakes have been reproduced solve? 2. What other solutions to this problem might there be? 3. What's the advantage of using markup to do this rather than visible text like deadtree. What's wrong with "The House of Representatives shall chuse [<span lang="la">sic</span>] their Speaker and other Officers"? 4. It seems like "sic" would be a very rarely used feature. Why do we need to include it in the small, core HTML vocabulary rather than an RDF vocabulary imported into HTML via annotations like RDFa, microdata, or microformats? -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
