<q> and language-specific quotation marks

[Tristan Miller]

Greetings.

Do any popular browsers correctly support <q>, at least for Western
languages? I've noticed that Mozilla uses the standard English
double-quote character, ", regardless of the lang attribute of the HTML
document. Will any browsers render German-style quotes or French-style
guillemots for lang="de" and lang="fr", respectively?

Regards,
Tristan

--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you

[kayodeok]

Re: &lt;q&gt; and language-specific quotation marks

Tristan Miller <psychonaut@not hingisreal.com> wrote in
news:3863320.yt DmvXUDI8@ID-187157.news.dfn cis.de:
[color=blue]
> Greetings.
>
> Do any popular browsers correctly support <q>, at least for
> Western languages? I've noticed that Mozilla uses the standard
> English double-quote character, ", regardless of the lang
> attribute of the HTML document. Will any browsers render
> German-style quotes or French-style guillemots for lang="de" and
> lang="fr", respectively?[/color]

IE doesn't support <q>

Getting quote marks around <q> tags in IE

http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=Pine.LNX.4.53.0310111352150.10264%40ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk

--
Kayode Okeyode

http://www.kayodeok.co.uk/weblog/

[Darth Ferret]

Re: &lt;q&gt; and language-specific quotation marks

H.F. ?

"Tristan Miller" <psychonaut@not hingisreal.com> wrote in message
news:3863320.yt DmvXUDI8@ID-187157.news.dfn cis.de...[color=blue]
> Greetings.
>
> Do any popular browsers correctly support <q>, at least for Western
> languages? I've noticed that Mozilla uses the standard English
> double-quote character, ", regardless of the lang attribute of the HTML
> document. Will any browsers render German-style quotes or French-style
> guillemots for lang="de" and lang="fr", respectively?
>
> Regards,
> Tristan
>
> --
> _
> _V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
> / |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
> (7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
>[/color]

[Brian]

Re: &lt;q&gt; and language-specific quotation marks

Tristan Miller wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Do any popular browsers correctly support <q>, at least for Western
> languages? I've noticed that Mozilla uses the standard English
> double-quote character, ", regardless of the lang attribute of the HTML
> document. Will any browsers render German-style quotes or French-style
> guillemots for lang="de" and lang="fr", respectively?[/color]

Mozilla displays French language quote delimiters with the following
in css:

[lang="fr"] {
quotes: '« ' ' »'
}

German could be handled in a similar fashion.

[lang="de"] {
quotes: '„' '"'
}

I don't know German nearly well enough to write in it, so I've never
actually used the second example.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: &lt;q&gt; and language-specific quotation marks

Tristan Miller <psychonaut@not hingisreal.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Do any popular browsers correctly support <q>[/color]

No.
[color=blue]
> I've noticed that Mozilla uses the standard English
> double-quote character, ", regardless of the lang attribute of the
> HTML document.[/color]

If you mean what you wrote, the Ascii quotation mark, then it's
definitely not _standard_ for English, or any language (except computer
"languages" ). It's just the worldwide common surrogate.
[color=blue]
> Will any browsers render German-style quotes or
> French-style guillemots for lang="de" and lang="fr", respectively?[/color]

Only if you write them as actual characters (and then the lang
attribute is immaterial in this issue). Why wouldn't you do that? We
can use language-specific punctuation characters for other things (such
as inverted question mark at the start of a question in languages that
require it), and seldom do we see requests to dispense with that by
using markup (like <question>) instead. What's so special about
quotations, then?

Beware that attempts to make browsers implement <q> by using CSS are
generally not successful and that _correct_ use of quotation marks is
trickier than people think.

Anyway, <q> was good idea as described (as an example) in the SGML
standard, but HTML did not adopt the idea early enough (and well
enough), and now it's too late. Just forget <q>.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Micah Cowan]

Re: &lt;q&gt; and language-specific quotation marks

Tristan Miller <psychonaut@not hingisreal.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> Greetings.
>
> Do any popular browsers correctly support <q>, at least for Western
> languages? I've noticed that Mozilla uses the standard English
> double-quote character, ", regardless of the lang attribute of the HTML
> document. Will any browsers render German-style quotes or French-style
> guillemots for lang="de" and lang="fr", respectively?[/color]

AIUI, a browser is not required to make allowances for the
declared language; if you want these changes, you are supposed to
use CSS to specify them (shameless snippet from CSS2 spec:)

Q:lang(en) { quotes: '"' '"' "'" "'" }
Q:lang(no) { quotes: "«" "»" "<" ">" }

....however, to my knowledge, neither Mozilla nor MSIE support
this. Mozilla uses " " ' ' regardless of what you specify using
CSS; and MSIE (last I checked) doesn't support the <q> element
properly at all. I think Opera might, but since that's not very
mainstream, it probably won't help you much.

-Micah

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: &lt;q&gt; and language-specific quotation marks

Micah Cowan <micah@cowan.na me> wrote:
[color=blue]
> AIUI, a browser is not required to make allowances for the
> declared language;[/color]

The HTML specification says: "User agents should render quotation marks
in a language-sensitive manner (see the lang attribute)." In that
sense, it's not a requirement for conformance to recommendation, just a
recommendation in the recommendation. :-) On the other hand, it is a
bit unrealistic to say that user agents should behave that way, since
it is rather hard to support all the thousands of languages, even in a
detail like this, since official information on punctuation rules is
not easy to find.
[color=blue]
> if you want these changes, you are supposed to
> use CSS to specify them[/color]

No, you're not. The HTML specification says that browsers should do
such things automatically. And in practical terms, <q> markup is
useless.
[color=blue]
> (shameless snippet from CSS2 spec:)
>
> Q:lang(en) { quotes: '"' '"' "'" "'" }
> Q:lang(no) { quotes: "«" "»" "<" ">" }[/color]

How typical. Both rules are completely wrong, by the rules of those
languages. Correct English orthography uses none of the characters
listed, and Norwegian surely does not use less than sign and greater
than sign as inner quotes.

To repeat myself: Forget <q>. Use plain Ascii quotation marks, unless
you _know_ the correct use of punctuation characters in the language of
the context where the quotation appears and you can be reasonably sure
that browsers support those characters well enough. And when estimating
whether you _know_ such issues, it is useful to remember that the
authors of the CSS specification didn't have a clue.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Micah Cowan]

Re: &lt;q&gt; and language-specific quotation marks

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> writes:
[color=blue]
> Micah Cowan <micah@cowan.na me> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > AIUI, a browser is not required to make allowances for the
> > declared language;[/color]
>
> The HTML specification says: "User agents should render quotation marks
> in a language-sensitive manner (see the lang attribute)." In that
> sense, it's not a requirement for conformance to recommendation, just a
> recommendation in the recommendation. :-) On the other hand, it is a
> bit unrealistic to say that user agents should behave that way, since
> it is rather hard to support all the thousands of languages, even in a
> detail like this, since official information on punctuation rules is
> not easy to find.
>[color=green]
> > if you want these changes, you are supposed to
> > use CSS to specify them[/color]
>
> No, you're not. The HTML specification says that browsers should do
> such things automatically.[/color]

SHOULD and MUST are very different--formally. You *are* supposed
to use CSS if you want to force a conforming user-agent to Do The
Right Thing(TM). However, since there don't seem to be any
conforming user-agents... <grin>.
[color=blue]
> And in practical terms, <q> markup is useless.[/color]

Yeah, which sucks.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > (shameless snippet from CSS2 spec:)
> >
> > Q:lang(en) { quotes: '"' '"' "'" "'" }
> > Q:lang(no) { quotes: "«" "»" "<" ">" }[/color]
>
> How typical. Both rules are completely wrong, by the rules of those
> languages. Correct English orthography uses none of the characters
> listed, and Norwegian surely does not use less than sign and greater
> than sign as inner quotes.[/color]

Agreed about (en); although even if it had been correct, I didn't
post using an encoding that would have allowed more appropriate
ones.

As to (no); you're right, that's stupid. That's how they were in
the CSS2 standard, though (should've been &#x2039; and &#x203a; I
believe)
[color=blue]
> To repeat myself: Forget <q>.[/color]

But only until the stupid mainstream browsers (IOW, MSIE) get it
right. However, someone pointed out elsethread that apparently newer
versions Mozilla *can* get it right. Yay!
[color=blue]
> Use plain Ascii quotation marks[/color]

Why? Every browser I've seen supports &ldquo;, &rdquo;,
etc. Currently, the articles I've written in DocBook which use
DocBook's <quote> element are translated using these (and the
single-quote equivalents).
[color=blue]
>, unless
> you _know_ the correct use of punctuation characters in the language of
> the context where the quotation appears and you can be reasonably sure
> that browsers support those characters well enough.[/color]

But when you *don't* know this, are you sure that the Ascii
quotation marks are appropriate?

-Micah

[Tina Holmboe]

Re: &lt;q&gt; and language-specific quotation marks

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> exclaimed in <Xns94126199E8E E3jkorpelacstut fi@193.229.0.31 >:
[color=blue]
> such things automatically. And in practical terms, <q> markup is
> useless.[/color]

So. In practical terms, marking up an inline quotation as an inline
quotation is useless.

This is good to know.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower. net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: &lt;q&gt; and language-specific quotation marks

Micah Cowan <micah@cowan.na me> wrote:
[color=blue]
> SHOULD and MUST are very different--formally.[/color]

Theoretically HTML 4 specifications use RFC language here, but in
practice their wording is not that formal. Anyway, by the RFC language,
the statement that browsers SHOULD "render quotation marks in a
language-sensitive manner" means that "there may exist valid reasons in
particular circumstances to ignore [that statement] particular item,
but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed
before choosing a different course". So if an implementator has
understood the full implications etc. and decided not to make a user
agent behave that way, what makes us think that an author knows better?
[color=blue]
> You *are* supposed
> to use CSS if you want to force a conforming user-agent to Do The
> Right Thing(TM).[/color]

No, of course not. First, HTML specifications do not postulate any use
of CSS. They are meant to be used without a style sheet, with CSS style
sheets, or with other style sheet. Second, author style sheets (by
design and by implementation) certainly cannot force anything. Third, a
duplicate implementation of quotation mark rendering would be a shot in
the dark. A browser programmer can be in a position to _know_ that e.g.
curly quotes are not available in a rendering situation and use Ascii
quotation marks instead, and if an author style sheet tries to force
curly quotes, it could end up with having no quotes rendered.
[color=blue]
> Agreed about (en); although even if it had been correct, I didn't
> post using an encoding that would have allowed more appropriate
> ones.[/color]

Surely you could write a style sheet in Ascii only and yet use any
Unicode character in generated content.
[color=blue]
> As to (no); you're right, that's stupid. That's how they were in
> the CSS2 standard, though (should've been &#x2039; and &#x203a; I
> believe)[/color]

No, notations like &#x2039; have no meaning in CSS.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> To repeat myself: Forget <q>.[/color]
>
> But only until the stupid mainstream browsers (IOW, MSIE) get it
> right.[/color]

They'll never get it right. It'll take several years before the next
version of MSIE exists and has over 50 % share of MSIE installations.
And that's virtual eternity. Especially since by that time <q> will
have been officially deprecated or obsolete for years.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Use plain Ascii quotation marks[/color]
>
> Why? Every browser I've seen supports &ldquo;, &rdquo;,
> etc.[/color]

Then you haven't seen enough. Ascii quotation marks are _safe_, as I
wrote. If you consider using real quotation marks, then you should at
least refrain from using those quasi-mnemonic entity references and use
character references instead.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>, unless
>> you _know_ the correct use of punctuation characters in the
>> language of the context where the quotation appears and you can be
>> reasonably sure that browsers support those characters well
>> enough.[/color]
>
> But when you *don't* know this, are you sure that the Ascii
> quotation marks are appropriate?[/color]

Ascii quotation marks are still the safest way. It's true that these
days, the number of browsers that fail to render the character
references for curly quotes properly is rather small - but yet not
zero, and users are accustomed to seeing Ascii quotation marks, so this
is not a big issue. I'm personally moving towards using "smart"
quotation marks on new pages, especially since it's awkward to change
such things later - I cannot just do a simple editing operation to
change Ascii quotation marks to any smart characters, since Ascii
quotation marks are used for HTML markup (attribute value delimiters).

Besides, there are other problems with correct quotation marks, even
the guillemets. The guillemets are technically rather safe, being
ISO 8859-1 characters, but the clueless line breaking rules in browsers
cause quite some trouble (see
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/nobr.html ).

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: &lt;q&gt; and language-specific quotation marks

tina@greytower. net (Tina Holmboe) wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> such things automatically. And in practical terms, <q> markup is
>> useless.[/color]
>
> So. In practical terms, marking up an inline quotation as an inline
> quotation is useless.[/color]

Yes, because no software actually uses such markup for useful purposes,
_and_ the theoretically available markup is poorly designed.
[color=blue]
> This is good to know.[/color]

It is, is it not? Similarly, marking up a question as a question would
be useless, if <question> markup existed but had been defined so that
browsers should insert language-specific quotation mark(s) and they
actually did not do that and no search engine or other useful software
used that markup either.

We can still survive, can't we? The question mark is available, and so
are quotation marks. Actually, both a question mark and the quotation
marks are effectively markup - at the text level. If anyone wishes to
write an indexing robots that recognizes quotations, he could start
from recognizing strings delimited by quotation marks. (One might
consider treating <blockquote> as indicating quotation, but abuse is so
widespread that this would not be pragmatically wise.)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Tina Holmboe]

Re: &lt;q&gt; and language-specific quotation marks

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> exclaimed in <Xns9413AF10166 2jkorpelacstutf i@193.229.0.31> :
[color=blue]
> tina@greytower. net (Tina Holmboe) wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> such things automatically. And in practical terms, <q> markup is
>>> useless.[/color]
>>
>> So. In practical terms, marking up an inline quotation as an inline
>> quotation is useless.[/color]
>
> Yes, because no software actually uses such markup for useful purposes,
> _and_ the theoretically available markup is poorly designed.[/color]

Oddly enough, such tools exist. I can only guess that you find the Mozilla
solution "useless", but even Mark Pilgrim has a script for extracting
quotations.


[color=blue]
> are quotation marks. Actually, both a question mark and the quotation
> marks are effectively markup - at the text level. If anyone wishes to
> write an indexing robots that recognizes quotations, he could start
> from recognizing strings delimited by quotation marks. (One might[/color]

In Finnish - of which I know nothing - it might be that quotation marks
are always used to signify actual quotations. Such is not the case in
other languages.

How you intend to attach citation information to that text level markup
I cannot even begin to guess at.

Are we going to start writing browsers that use heuristic algorithms to
determine whether a random piece of text is one thing or the other ? That
might be amusing, but I fail to see it being helpful to anyone.

Be all of this as it may. So far I have not seen a sensible explanation of
why the *name* of the element had to change.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower. net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905

[Toby A Inkster]

Re: &lt;q&gt; and language-specific quotation marks

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
[color=blue]
> Especially since by that time <q> will
> have been officially deprecated or obsolete for years.[/color]

It is already gone int eh XHTML 2 drafts. Replaced by <quote>, that will
have more realistic demands on quote marks -- the author inserts them
directly into the XHTML:

<quote xml:lang="en">" Hello"</quote>

IIRC

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132

[Tim]

Re: &lt;q&gt; and language-specific quotation marks

On 12 Oct 2003 14:26:49 -0700,
Micah Cowan <micah@cowan.na me> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Every browser I've seen supports &ldquo;, &rdquo;,[/color]

Not every one that I've used, and some of the ones that didn't were the
only browsers available for that computer system. Though I dare say
that users would get used to what they're supposed to resent, and given
a push the browser developers might bother to include recognition for
them, even if they only map them back to the ordinary quote symbols.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.

[Tim]

Re: &lt;q&gt; and language-specific quotation marks

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 22:50:24 GMT,
tina@greytower. net (Tina Holmboe) wrote:
[color=blue]
> So far I have not seen a sensible explanation of why the *name* of
> the element had to change.[/color]

The obvious reasons:

Q is broken, and is always going to be. Changing it will cause even
more problems.

Adding a new element with a clear definition that can be implemented in
the same way, in all browsers, and ignored without problems, is an
improvement to the situation.

e.g. Someone said, <quote>"this is a pain."</quote> will be rendered as:

Someone said, "this is a pain."

Whether or not the browser knows there's a quote there, or not.

Quote is a better term than just q, likewise for other one letter tags.

An XHTML 2, or any other NEWER form of language, doesn't have to be the
same as the older versions. Older browsers will have problems with
newer languages, no matter what. Newer browsers should handle new
languages properly, and older ones as best as possible. Older documents
should be handled in the manner that the old specifications mention, and
newer documents, likewise.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.