<q> and language-specific quotation marks

[Tim]

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

tina@greytower. net (Tina Holmboe) wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> So far I have not seen a sensible explanation of why the *name* of
>>> the element had to change.[/color][/color][/color]


Tim <admin@sheerhel l.lan>
[color=blue][color=green]
>> The obvious reasons:
>>
>> Q is broken, and is always going to be. Changing it will cause even
>> more problems.[/color][/color]


tina@greytower. net (Tina Holmboe) wrote:
[color=blue]
> Firstly, no - it is not obvious. An indication of that is that I wouldn't
> ask if it was.
>
> Secondly, am I to understand that:
>
> Q is broken because not everyone agrees that (visual) UAs should
> include language specific quotation marks. It is further broken
> because very few (one?) (visual) UA today actually implements it
> as it is specified.[/color]

Isn't that just why Q is broken?
[color=blue]
> Changing the definition of Q to be more in line
> what some believe it should be, and more in line of what is currently
> implemented, will cause MORE problems.[/color]

Isn't there no change to Q's definition, Q just disappears, and a new
element called Quote, that just happens to perform a similar function,
gets a better definition? People would use Q, if they did, and it'd be
handled just the same as Q was before (however the browser author
decided to handle it), but quote *might* get handled as the
specifications said.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Quote is a better term than just q, likewise for other one letter tags.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Quite possibly. Breaking tools for the sake of the better term is a
> terrible idea.[/color]

Thus, we should never have dropped HTML 3.2 and stayed there? All the
HTML language versions have progressed and made some elements obsolete,
some dropped completely.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Not if at least some thought is given to backwards compatibility. An
> HTML 4 UA can still make sense of an XHTML 2.0 document *if they don't
> go changing the names for elements that retain the meaning*.[/color]

It still can. It handles documents identified as HTML 4 as HTML 4
documents, and documents identified as XHTML 2.0 as XHTML 2.0, and so
on. Whatever the ranting views of various people, the doctype does have
a good potential use of identifying the type of document, so the
user-agent can handle it properly.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> ... and new languages designed for public consumption should try to
> retain backwards compatibility. Anything else is sheer folly.[/color]

So, you don't like HTML 4.01 either?

I disagree. The user-agent ought to be able to handle different
languages (including different versions), but I don't see that the
document language has to support every bit of rubbish that was
previously done.

--
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.

[Brian]

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

Tina Holmboe wrote:[color=blue]
> Brian <usenet1@mangym utt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> exclaimed in <LtKib.758870$H o3.196014@sccrn sc03>:
>[color=green]
>>Tina Holmboe wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Q, today, is understood by quite a few UAs, visual and non-visual,[/color]
>>
>>Such as?[/color]
>
> Mozilla ?
>
> Opera ?[/color]

We've been discussing those, but when I read "quite a few," I thought
maybe there were some special tools in addition to the 2 browsers that
render the quotes. (Since that's all they, I see no advantage to <q>
over using quotes in the text.)
[color=blue]
> A number of UAs that process HTML and extract quotations ?[/color]

ok, *such as*?

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

[I V]

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

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:52:25 +0000, Brian wrote:
[color=blue]
> Tina Holmboe wrote:[color=green]
>> Brian <usenet1@mangym utt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> exclaimed in <LtKib.758870$H o3.196014@sccrn sc03>:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Tina Holmboe wrote:
>>>
>>>>Q, today, is understood by quite a few UAs, visual and non-visual,
>>>
>>>Such as?[/color]
>>
>> Mozilla ?
>>
>> Opera ?[/color]
>
> We've been discussing those, but when I read "quite a few," I thought
> maybe there were some special tools in addition to the 2 browsers that
> render the quotes. (Since that's all they, I see no advantage to <q>
> over using quotes in the text.)[/color]

That's not quite true. Mozilla lets you access he URL in the 'cite'
attribute from the context menu. The UI is pretty awful, but it does at
least allow users to view the information.

--
"Okay, this time I'm Poison Ivy, you're Harley Quinn, and we're pulling a
daring heist of an adult novelty goods store."

http://www.huh.34sp.com/

[Tina Holmboe]

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

Brian <usenet1@mangym utt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> exclaimed in <dRVib.774038$u u5.134604@sccrn sc04>:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> A number of UAs that process HTML and extract quotations ?[/color]
>
> ok, *such as*?[/color]

That, Brian, was - I'm sorry to say - predictable. Sorry, I don't have
an extensive list. The two I know of is my own quote extracting gimmick and
the script Mark P. is using.

There are others, afaik. I'm sure Google can help.

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

[Stan Brown]

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

In article <pan.2003.10.14 .07.01.08.12163 4@goddamn.co.uk > in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Toby A Inkster
<UseTheAddressI nMySig@deadspam .com> wrote:[color=blue]
>Stan Brown wrote:
>[color=green]
>> (Once again, I have restored the attribution that you stripped out.
>> Please do not put other people's words in my mouth. How would you
>> like it if I used your name on a quote that you disagree with?)
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> Toby A Inkster <UseTheAddressI nMySig@deadspam .com>
>>>>>Let's say you want to do this:[/color][/color]
>
>Can anyone see the irony?[/color]

You mean, because you use an obviously fake address and do it in
the wrong way?

The alternatives are to use what information, poor as it is, you
give, or to falsely attribute(*) your words, which I do not agree
with, to me.

(*) Yes, I know. See Fowler at "split infinitive".

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Micah Cowan]

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

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fm> writes:
[color=blue]
> In article <bmeofi$519$05$ 1@news.t-online.com> in
> comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Bertilo Wennergren
> <bertilow@gmx.n et> wrote:[color=green]
> >Stan Brown:[/color]
>
> [stripped attribution restored]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Toby A Inkster <UseTheAddressI nMySig@deadspam .com>
> >>><quote xml:lang="en">" Hello"</quote>[/color]
> >[color=darkred]
> >> I'm trying hard to understand what advantage that has over
> >> "Hello"
> >> but I'm failing.[/color]
> >
> >Let's say you want to do this:
> > quote {
> > font-style: italic;
> > }
> >You can of course add a meaningless "span" to your unstylable piece of
> >naked text, but wouldn't a meaningful element be better?[/color]
>
> No, I don't think so. More precisely, I don't think such a styling
> in <quote> or <span> is ever appropriate. Maybe in other languages
> things are different, but AFAIK in English inline quotes are not
> styled differently from regular text.[/color]

Not true. I have read many books where inline quotes were
indicated by italics. Sometimes this was 100% consistent, and
other times it is frequently used (even in modern books) to
indicate "thought"-quotes. In ths case a "class" attribute might
be appropriate.

However, I agree that <quote xml:lang="en">" Hello"</quote> has no
advantage over "Hello" ... but <quote xml:lang="en">H ello</quote>
does. In particular, it places the burden of having to remember
what level of quotations to use upon the user agent, instead of
the author; and it allows you to easily quote a section of text
that contains a quote: you merely wrap another <quote/> around it
without having to change double-quotes to singles, etc.

-Micah

[Micah Cowan]

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

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fm> writes:
[color=blue]
> In article <bmfk1q$t6p$03$ 1@news.t-online.com> in
> comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Bertilo Wennergren
> <bertilow@gmx.n et> wrote:
>
> (Once again, I have restored the attribution that you stripped out.
> Please do not put other people's words in my mouth. How would you
> like it if I used your name on a quote that you disagree with?)
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Toby A Inkster <UseTheAddressI nMySig@deadspam .com>
> >>>Let's say you want to do this:
> >>> quote {
> >>> font-style: italic;
> >>> }
> >>>You can of course add a meaningless "span" to your unstylable piece of
> >>>naked text, but wouldn't a meaningful element be better?[/color]
> >
> >Stan Brown:[color=darkred]
> >> No, I don't think so. More precisely, I don't think such a styling
> >> in <quote> or <span> is ever appropriate. Maybe in other languages
> >> things are different, but AFAIK in English inline quotes are not
> >> styled differently from regular text.[/color]
> >
> >That seems to rule out lots of use of styling. E.g.:
> >
> > <strong>whateve r</strong>
> >
> > strong {
> > color: red;
> > background-color: white;
> > }
> >
> >Never style a "span"?[/color]
>
> That is not what I said. I said I don't think that styling a quote
> in italics is appropriate, whether you use <quote> or <span> to do
> it.[/color]

Yes it is, though it may not have been what you meant. Read your
quote above again.

-Micah

[Micah Cowan]

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

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fm> writes:
[color=blue]
> In article <pan.2003.10.14 .07.01.08.12163 4@goddamn.co.uk > in
> comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Toby A Inkster
> <UseTheAddressI nMySig@deadspam .com> wrote:[color=green]
> >Stan Brown wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> (Once again, I have restored the attribution that you stripped out.
> >> Please do not put other people's words in my mouth. How would you
> >> like it if I used your name on a quote that you disagree with?)
> >>
> >>>> Toby A Inkster <UseTheAddressI nMySig@deadspam .com>
> >>>>>Let's say you want to do this:[/color]
> >
> >Can anyone see the irony?[/color]
>
> You mean, because you use an obviously fake address and do it in
> the wrong way?[/color]

No, because you attribute to Toby A Inkster a quote which in fact
originated from Bertilo Wennergren, whilst you complain about
incorrect attributions to you (which I can't seem to find -- the
quoting levels make it entirely obvious which quotes are yours
and which aren't--though I'll agree that *all* levels should have
been properly attributed for absolute clarity). It's pretty
ironic to me, too :-)

This seems very much like the stereotypical spelling or grammar
corrections, which are of course obliged to contain at least one
such error in the complaint.

-Micah

[Micah Cowan]

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

Andreas Prilop <nhtcapri@rrz n-user.uni-hannover.de> writes:
[color=blue]
> Micah Cowan <micah@cowan.na me> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Every browser I've seen supports &ldquo;, &rdquo;,[/color]
>
> Young boy![/color]

(Sorry I didn't obey the Followup-To header; mainly because I
don't understand why it broke the cross-post, and because I do
not read the c.i.w.a.h [yet]).

Yeah, you're right: I'm mistaken (for some reason, I'd thought
they were included in the entities for 3.2; obviously
not). However, every *current* browser I've seen supports them,
and the character reference equivalents (to which I frequently
convert these through postprocesing) are supported by the
previous generation of browsers. I don't encounter too many
people still surfing with browsers much older than that, so am
not too concerned; especially since those browsers would have
bigger issues with other standard-conformant but not
backwards-compatible facilities I frequently use.

-Micah

[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][color=darkred]
> >> Theoretically HTML 4 specifications use RFC language here, but in
> >> practice their wording is not that formal.[/color]
> >
> > The second paragraph of section 4 makes it 100% formal.[/color]
>
> Thanks for a good laugh. Seriously, you haven't actually studied the
> HTML specification much if you think that it really sticks to RFC
> language.[/color]

I'd be much happier if you'd actually produce some quotes from
the spec to back up that statement, rather than just haughtily
assert that my notion is laughable. In particular, I can't think
of many instances in which you can prove that a specification
didn't mean "must" where it says "must", and "should" where it
says "should". And, in *particular*, I see no reason why you
should not interpret the "should" in 9.2.2, which we were
discussing, in accordance with the RFC language--especially since
the spec itself tells you to. After all, if you can't treat a
spec as law, then what good is a spec? Better to buy a book that
teaches you all sorts of non-conformant but "de facto standard"
extensions and base your code on that :-(

I'll concede the point about requiring CSS; so I will modify my
previous assertion to "you are *supposed* to use style sheets to
indicate your preferences for the handling of <q>"; there, does
that make you happier?

For my part, the mere fact that the W3C recommends their use
instead of typing quotation marks directly (see, e.g., checkpoint
3.7 of the WCAG) gives me pause to dismiss them, and a comparison
of the relative advantages/disadvantages to using typed-in
quotation marks causes me to conclude that would not a poor
practice to prefer to use <q> (were it not for the fact that it
is not well-supported by a certain browser with very large
market-share). This doesn't stop me from writing my DocBook XML
stuff using the <quote> element, though; and the major advantage
to this is that I can choose to convert these to XHTML <q> in my
XSLT stylesheets once they are well-supported in the mainstream;
but convert them to suitable quote-mark characters in the
meantime.

The only actual disadvantage to <q> that I can see is in the case
of long quotations containing actual paragraph breaks (for
example, in conversations), since each new paragraph should being
with opening quote-marks; but in this case, the quote doesn't
really fit the qualification of "inline quote".

-Micah

[Alan J. Flavell]

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

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Micah Cowan wrote:
[color=blue]
> Andreas Prilop <nhtcapri@rrz n-user.uni-hannover.de> writes:
>[color=green]
> > Micah Cowan <micah@cowan.na me> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Every browser I've seen supports &ldquo;, &rdquo;,[/color]
> >
> > Young boy![/color][/color]
[...][color=blue]
> Yeah, you're right: I'm mistaken (for some reason, I'd thought
> they were included in the entities for 3.2; obviously
> not). However, every *current* browser I've seen supports them,[/color]

fair comment, but:
[color=blue]
> and the character reference equivalents (to which I frequently
> convert these through postprocesing) are supported by the
> previous generation of browsers.[/color]

So it seems you have no need to advocate use of the entity names!
While the difference in coverage can now be considered quite small,
and some would deem it no longer of any significance, the fact is that
one does get somewhat wider coverage with &#bignumber; notation for
these characters, than with the &entityname; notations which HTML4
defined.

The only other consideration I could think of is that some of the
entity names, such as &trade; , &Omega; etc are immediately intuitive
(if somewhat messy) if the browser doesn't understand them - and
therefore displays them as coded. Whereas browsers that are too old
(or incomplete - see WebTV) to understand &#bignumber; notation are
liable to display something incomprehensibl e and/or silly.

But by now I wouldn't consider that to be a substantive argument. If
folks choose to use old or incomplete software, I'm willing to go some
way - as far as it doesn't disadvantage other users - to maintaining
compatibility, but I see no call for heroic measures.

[Toby A Inkster]

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

Stan Brown wrote:
[color=blue]
> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Can anyone see the irony?[/color]
>
> You mean, because you use an obviously fake address and do it in
> the wrong way?[/color]

No, because you complain about misattributing quotes and in the same post
misattribute a quote which Bertilo said to me.

And the address is real.

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

[Stan Brown]

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

In article <m3oewi1b6h.fsf @localhost.loca ldomain> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Micah Cowan <micah@cowan.na me>
wrote:[color=blue]
>Stan Brown <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fm> writes:[color=green]
>> That is not what I said. I said I don't think that styling a quote
>> in italics is appropriate, whether you use <quote> or <span> to do
>> it.[/color]
>
>Yes it is, though it may not have been what you meant. Read your
>quote above again.[/color]

I have done so, and I stand by what I said.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Stan Brown]

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

In article <pan.2003.10.15 .21.49.31.27855 @goddamn.co.uk> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Toby A Inkster
<UseTheAddressI nMySig@deadspam .com> wrote:[color=blue]
>Stan Brown wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Can anyone see the irony?[/color]
>>
>> You mean, because you use an obviously fake address and do it in
>> the wrong way?[/color]
>
>No, because you complain about misattributing quotes and in the same post
>misattribute a quote which Bertilo said to me.[/color]

I have tried and failed to figure out who said what -- because
Bertilo persisted in snipping attributions and I was working from
his article, which I replied to.
[color=blue]
>And the address is real.[/color]

Yeah, right.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Toby A Inkster]

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

Stan Brown wrote:
[color=blue]
> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Stan Brown wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> You mean, because you use an obviously fake address and do it in
>>> the wrong way?[/color]
>>
>> And the address is real.[/color]
>
> Yeah, right.[/color]

If you don't believe me, send an e-mail.

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