proper use of <cite>

[Neal]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;


"Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote in message
news:btepnm$62e cb$1@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...[color=blue]
> I don't know where you get the "most" from, but that certainly[/color]
is another[color=blue]
> kind of citation.
>[/color]

But I rarely see citations presented in italics except with this
tag. Maybe I look in the wrong places.

[Firas D.]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;

Haines Brown wrote:[color=blue]
> I've not had a clear definition in my mind of "citation," and so have
> avoided it. For example, if I suggest that the reputation of the New
> York Times has suffered, is that a citation?
>[/color]

While on the subject, the docs list the blockquote cite attribute as a
URI ("The value of this attribute is a URI that designates a source
document or message.") What would you make of citing offline sources in
the 'cite' attribute? (eg. name of a book and page num, or 'Shak.
Romeo&Juliet I.II.30-43') (Yes, after visibly citing in the body itself).

[kchayka]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;

Neal wrote:[color=blue]
>
> The text browser emulator in Opera, which I'm told
> is similar, makes no change to <em> and <strong> elements. I'll
> assume Lynx behaves the same.[/color]

Incorrect assumption. Lynx by default identifies <em> and <strong>
elements with color. You should assume other text browsers behave the same.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.

[Brian]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;

Neal wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Lynx does nothing at all with <em> to my knowledge.[/color]

<quoting source="Alan Flavell">
OH YES IT DOES
</quoting>
:-D

Lynx 2.8.3 rel 1 running on Win2k displays <em> as purple text
(instead of black for normal text). (I think I may have configured it
to do this some time ago, but I can't find any place to do so at the
moment.)

Lynx 2.8.4 rel 1 running on Linux displays <em> text underlined.
[color=blue]
> The text browser emulator in Opera, which I'm told is similar,
> makes no change to <em> and <strong> elements.[/color]

I just tried text browser mode in O7.23/Win2k. It appears to have lots
of problems. For one thing, visited links have lines running through
them instead of under them. (Is it supposed to do that?) In any case,
it doesn't appear to be a very good Lynx emulator, but then it doesn't
promise to be a Lynx emulator.

Try this instead:

http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html

However, note that this emulator uses italics for <em>, which is
likely impossible for the real Lynx in any setting.
[color=blue]
> So in fact, you cannot make italic text in such a browser. No way
> no how.[/color]

AFAIK, that is correct. But it *can* render <em> in a useful way.
[color=blue]
> What I'm suggesting is this - italics/underlining (analogous in
> meaning in text, historically) and boldface are standard
> paper-printing styles.[/color]

The web is not paper. It's worth dwelling on that point for a moment.
The point of the html is to allow multiple renderings of the same
document, each one appropriate to its medium. The same document can be
presented on a computer screen, spoken by an aural browser, or printed
on paper. In each case, the content will be presented in a useful
manner, assuming a reasonably conforming ua is used.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> <em> does not mean italics. It means emphasized text.[/color]
>
> ... it is also true that italics has long meant emphasized text.[/color]

But italics means other things, too. A book title should be rendered
in italics in a print, but that title should not be emphasized when
spoken. Some style guides recommend putting foreign words or phrases
in italics, but such phrases need not necessarily be emphasized. (You
hinted at this in your response.)
[color=blue]
> So <em> really has one of three end effects on one's content. 1) It
> renders it visually as italics.2) It has no effect at all. 3) It
> creates audible emphasis on the element's contents, which as I've
> said is analogous to italics.[/color]

4) it renders it with underline
5) it renders it in a different color
6) ...
[color=blue]
> What you're not saying, but appears to be the crux of your
> argument, is that there is no connection between emphasized words
> and italicized words.[/color]

No. I'm saying that authoring HTML is about assigning meaning to text.
Interpreting HTML is about choosing an appropriate rendering of the
meaning. If this newsgroup were devoted to creating browsers, then I'd
argue that <em> content should be italicized where possible. But this
is an html authoring group. You, as author, do not have final say in
how <em> is rendered, and should not get overly concerned about it.
Mark up the text for meaning, and let the ua do its job.

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

[Brian]

&lt;q&gt; (was proper use of &lt;cite&gt; )

Neal wrote:[color=blue]
>
> if you are quoting inline, do you use the <q> markup?[/color]

No. I used to, until I was dissuaded from using <q> in a thread here.
<q> is fraught with problems, for reasons that you already know.
[color=blue]
> If so, you will not have quotes around the quote in IE. If you add
> quotes but do not use the tag, you are not marking it for meaning.
> If you use both, many poor viewers will see extra quotes. If that
> bothers you in the slightest, you *are* concerned with the
> presentation caused by the <q> markup.[/color]

Exactly the problem.
[color=blue]
> Now, are quotes meaning or presentation? In their absence, you
> cannot easily discern a quote.[/color]

Don't use <q>; put quotation marks in the document content.
[color=blue]
> I charge that nobody would bother using it - similar to the state
> of affairs with the noticeable absence of <q> in source codes, when
> only one admittedly widespread browser does not support it.[/color]

<q> is rarely used in part because of the requirement that uas render
quotation marks -- it should have been forbidden instead.

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

[Neal]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;


"Brian" <usenet2@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part>
wrote in message news:A5JKb.7616 82$Tr4.2170461@ attbi_s03...[color=blue]
> Lynx 2.8.3 rel 1 running on Win2k displays <em> as purple text
> (instead of black for normal text). (I think I may have[/color]
configured it[color=blue]
> to do this some time ago, but I can't find any place to do so[/color]
at the[color=blue]
> moment.)
>
> Lynx 2.8.4 rel 1 running on Linux displays <em> text[/color]
underlined.

Gee, you could have told me *before* my rant! :)

Still, Lynx is the sole anomaly, and out of necessity, as it does
not generate italic text. Color isn't the wisest method to convey
meaning, and underlining is typically reserved for marking links.
If the Lynx viewer (and thanks very much for the link) is
accurate, Lynx shows emphasized text and links identically
(except perhaps color). For many of the users who require a text
browser, coloration is tantamount to no presentation at all
applied to <em>, and underlining a rather confusing and IMO
ill-advised presentation.
[color=blue]
> I just tried text browser mode in O7.23/Win2k. It appears to[/color]
have lots[color=blue]
> of problems. For one thing, visited links have lines running[/color]
through[color=blue]
> them instead of under them. (Is it supposed to do that?)[/color]

That's how my Opera works as well.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > What I'm suggesting is this - italics/underlining (analogous[/color][/color]
in[color=blue][color=green]
> > meaning in text, historically) and boldface are standard
> > paper-printing styles.[/color]
>
> The web is not paper. It's worth dwelling on that point for a[/color]
moment.

You are correct. But we cannot so easily wipe away hundreds of
years of precedent to printed text with one swoop. It might not
be paper, but we are still reading - and we as humans are
conditioned to getting cues from the presentation of text which
clarify meaning. What the proponents of total unequivical
separation of presentation from content -- whether that
presentation concretely aids in expressing the content, is purely
decorative, or is somewhere in between -- are asking is, "Ok,
you've been doing this for hundreds of years, and it's worked gre
at for the tech you've had, but now we have this new tech, so
everything changes now." People just don't change that quickly.
It's an unreasonable expectation to assume that the common man
will simply nod and say, "Gee, these computer people must be
right."

Hundreds of years of precedent in reading type, and a millenia
plus before of reading in general, and suddenly the world must
accept change.

My overriding point is that presentation has always intersected
content. They can be as successfully separated as your head from
your body. While they are distinct, they are married to each
other. Raw content without presentation is less meaningful, and
if our goal is to express meaning with HTML, we must consider the
effect of presentation in order to most clearly express what we
have to say.

Just because we want high school graduates to be able to read
Chaucer and solve a quadratic equation doesn't mean we teach
Chaucer and algebra in kindergarten. But we begin by teaching
numbers, letters and words. Likewise, though a visionary can see
that the end result of the internet's efect on mankind is a whole
new way of thinking about presenting information, we're not there
yet. We're still in maybe 3rd or 4th grade.
[color=blue]
> The point of the html is to allow multiple renderings of the[/color]
same[color=blue]
> document, each one appropriate to its medium. The same document[/color]
can be[color=blue]
> presented on a computer screen, spoken by an aural browser, or[/color]
printed[color=blue]
> on paper. In each case, the content will be presented in a[/color]
useful[color=blue]
> manner, assuming a reasonably conforming ua is used.[/color]

So if I print out a well-formed valid HTML document, it will
follow print conventions? Doesn't seem to happen. Sounds more to
me like every UA for itself. "Useful" isn't enough for me. I'd
like to know the recipient of the content is getting my message
whatever the medium - paper, screen or sound. To me, that
involves considering not only meaning but expression. Like the
already-time-worn mantra that tone is difficult to discern in an
email or Usenet post. The reason is that the opportunities to
present the content appropriately are absent.

If I ran the W3C, I'd want UA's of forseeable classifications to
adhere as closely as possible to traditional modes of
presentation. I would not recommend that complying UA's render
<em> with italics, I would require it. I would not reccomend that
aural browsers change the pitch and volume of <strong> markedly,
I'd require it. The only exceptions would be when a particular
technology to cause it to happen is unavailable or impossible in
a particular UA.

We might as well leave out speech readers from the discussion, as
we both agree that they are unique in many ways. We both agree
that they should ideally be expected to emulate human expressive
reading. I think you agree that it's appropriate to mark up text
toward the end that a speech reader will more acurately mimic the
patterns of human speech.

Yet you discard the notion that text UA's should be expected to
emulate human expressive writing. You say it is inappropriate to
mark up text toward the end that a text UA will more acurately
mimic the patterns of human writing.

Unless I have you wrong. Please correct me if I do - believe it
or not, I'd like you to convince me.

[Neal]

Re: &lt;q&gt; (was proper use of &lt;cite&gt; )


"Brian" <usenet2@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part>
wrote in message news:%bJKb.7905 6$xX.559306@att bi_s02...[color=blue]
> <q> is rarely used in part because of the requirement that uas[/color]
render[color=blue]
> quotation marks -- it should have been forbidden instead.[/color]

Actually, it would seem <q> is unused because the most prevalent
browser fails to render <q> according to the recommendation, thus
making it express no meaning in the most prevalent browser.
Unless you have further background on this you'd like to share?

I still argue that if IE (or, in a different world, whatever
other browser had the market share) didn't render <em> as
italics, it would be the same. Just as the usefulness of <q> is
ruined by its lack of presentation, <em> would be a lost vestage
of HTML 2.0 if it were not rendered. Especially since we have <i>
to force italics, as we have " to force a quotation presentation.

[Neal]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;


"Firas D." <fd-removethis-@firasd.org> wrote in message
news:btfjqn$6s7 1q$1@ID-214165.news.uni-berlin.de...[color=blue]
> While on the subject, the docs list the blockquote cite[/color]
attribute as a[color=blue]
> URI ("The value of this attribute is a URI that designates a[/color]
source[color=blue]
> document or message.") What would you make of citing offline[/color]
sources in[color=blue]
> the 'cite' attribute? (eg. name of a book and page num, or[/color]
'Shak.[color=blue]
> Romeo&Juliet I.II.30-43') (Yes, after visibly citing in the[/color]
body itself).[color=blue]
>[/color]

According to the spec, the cite attribute for <blockquote> and
<q> are not required.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h-9.2.2

[Stephen Poley]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:32:52 -0500, "Harlan Messinger"
<h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> 1. "The end of the world is coming next week," reported the Reverend Sam
>Doomsday.
>
> 2. "The end of the world is coming next week," reported <cite>The New
>York Times</cite>.
>
> 3. The <cite>New York Times</cite> is published daily.
>
>1 and 2 include citations; 2 and 3 use <cite>. I'd rather have the tag
>renamed. In the meantime, I prefer your solution, using a "title" class,
>better.[/color]

I believe (admittedly without any hard evidence to hand) that the <cite>
element was originally intended to be used for cited documents/articles,
so that a UA could extract them as a list of references. That being the
case I would only consider using it in case 2 above. In fact I don't
think it's even worth having there, but might be in:

4. A prediction of the end of the world was given in <cite>The New York
Times, 14 December 1999, page 97</cite>.

Anyone know of any such UA, BTW?

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

[Neal]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;


"Stephen Poley" <sbpoleySpicedH amTrap@xs4all.n l> wrote in message
news:vfdnvvopqc 9jaatb1uqp38aiq 9td6p3uo7@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> I believe (admittedly without any hard evidence to hand) that[/color]
the <cite>[color=blue]
> element was originally intended to be used for cited[/color]
documents/articles,[color=blue]
> so that a UA could extract them as a list of references.[/color]

From the 2.0 memo at
http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/html/rfc1866.txt :
.. . .
5.7.1.1. Citation: CITE

The <CITE> element is used to indicate the title of a book
or
other citation. It is typically rendered as italics. For
example:

He just couldn't get enough of <cite>The Grapes of
Wrath</cite>.
.. . .

From 3.2: "CITE used for citations or references to other
sources"

4.0/4.1 has a very similar wording plus these two examples;

As <CITE>Harry S. Truman</CITE> said,
<Q lang="en-us">The buck stops here.</Q>

More information can be found in <CITE>[ISO-0000]</CITE>.

If <cite> was originally intended as you suggest, they have a
weird way of showing that through their examples...

[Neal]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;


"Neal" <neal@spamrcn.c om> wrote in message
news:3ffbae56$0 $6744$61fed72c@ news.rcn.com...[color=blue]
>
> "Firas D." <fd-removethis-@firasd.org> wrote in message
> news:btfjqn$6s7 1q$1@ID-214165.news.uni-berlin.de...[color=green]
> > While on the subject, the docs list the blockquote cite[/color]
> attribute as a[color=green]
> > URI ("The value of this attribute is a URI that designates a[/color]
> source[color=green]
> > document or message.") What would you make of citing offline[/color]
> sources in[color=green]
> > the 'cite' attribute? (eg. name of a book and page num, or[/color]
> 'Shak.[color=green]
> > Romeo&Juliet I.II.30-43') (Yes, after visibly citing in the[/color]
> body itself).[color=green]
> >[/color]
>
> According to the spec, the cite attribute for <blockquote> and
> <q> are not required.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h-9.2.2[/color]

Sorry, misread your question.

The value for cite for both of these elements is a URI "for
source document or msg" - if it is an offline source, you'd link
to a bibliography, perhaps, where the full information is listed.[color=blue]
>
>[/color]

[Stephen Poley]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:45:42 -0500, "Neal" <neal@spamrcn.c om> wrote:
[color=blue]
>What you're not saying, but appears to be the crux of your
>argument, is that there is no connection between emphasized words
>and italicized words. Yet there clearly is.
>
>That's why I argue that presentation is not so easily divorced
>from meaning. While the attempt is noble, it fails to account for
>the fact that humans *do* associate the two in some cases.
>Colors, font sizes and faces, and other presentation have at best
>vague implications of expression of content. But the
>emphasis/italics connection cannot be so easily brushed aside.[/color]

Do you have a pen, Neal? How do you indicate emphasised text when you
are using it? I'll lay long odds it's not with italic text, and probably
not often with bolding either.

I've certainly spent more years indicating emphasis with either capital
letters or underlining than I have with italics - that applies to pen,
typewriter and the early word-processors.

How about Usenet posts? Did you use italics for emphasis in your post?
You did not - you used asterisks, and expected everyone to understand
that. You could have used capitals, and that would also have been
understood.

The fact is that most people are used to emphasis being represented in a
variety of different ways, according to context. The concept of emphasis
is clearly separate from any specific presentation.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

[Stephen Poley]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 03:04:25 -0500, "Neal" <neal@spamrcn.c om> wrote:
[color=blue]
>4.0/4.1 has a very similar wording plus these two examples;
>
>As <CITE>Harry S. Truman</CITE> said,
><Q lang="en-us">The buck stops here.</Q>
>
>More information can be found in <CITE>[ISO-0000]</CITE>.
>
>If <cite> was originally intended as you suggest, they have a
>weird way of showing that through their examples...[/color]

The ISO-0000 example is near enough what I am suggesting. I can only
agree with you about the others. The Harry S. Truman example makes no
sense to me.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

[Brian]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;

Neal wrote:[color=blue]
> Brian wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Lynx 2.8.3 rel 1 running on Win2k displays <em> as purple text
>> (instead of black for normal text).[/color]
>
> Color isn't the wisest method to convey meaning, and underlining is
> typically reserved for marking links.[/color]

Not in Lynx.

Lynx 2.8.3 rel 1 (Win2k)
<em> is purple
<a:link> is blue
<a:focus> is brown

Lynx 2.8.4 rel 1 (Linux)
<em> is underlined
<a:link> is bold
<a:focus> is reverse
[color=blue]
> For many of the users who require a text browser, coloration is
> tantamount to no presentation at all applied to <em>, and
> underlining a rather confusing and IMO ill-advised presentation.[/color]

No offense intended, but given how little you know about how Lynx
actually works, perhaps you should concede this part of your argument.
[color=blue]
> What the proponents of total unequivical separation of presentation
> from content[/color]

My arguments are not based on idealism. On the contrary, they are
based on the reality of the www.
[color=blue]
> Hundreds of years of precedent in reading type, and a millenia plus
> before of reading in general,[/color]

Have you actually read any of those documents? Did medieval
manuscripts contain italics? I must say I've never seen them in the
12th-14th century manuscripts of medieval French I've looked at.
[color=blue]
> Raw content without presentation is less meaningful,[/color]

Straw man. I never suggested that markup should have no distinct
presentation in a browser.
[color=blue]
> if our goal is to express meaning with HTML, we must consider the
> effect of presentation in order to most clearly express what we
> have to say.[/color]

I assume that e.g. <h1> will be interpreted in some useful way in a
conforming ua. Conventional typography says a headline should be
significantly larger than the body text, often in a different font.
And if I were laying out a newspaper, that's how I'd do it. On the
web, however, I don't know the properties of the display medium. I
don't know whether different fonts are available or larger text is
possible. I don't even know if letters will be printed at all.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> The point of the html is to allow multiple renderings of the same
>> document, each one appropriate to its medium.[/color]
>
> So if I print out a well-formed valid HTML document, it will follow
> print conventions? Doesn't seem to happen.[/color]

Isn't your complain better directed toward whoever wrote the ua?
[color=blue]
> Sounds more to me like every UA for itself. "Useful" isn't enough
> for me.[/color]

Then the www isn't for you, because it's all you can realistically expect.
[color=blue]
> If I ran the W3C, I'd want UA's of forseeable classifications to
> adhere as closely as possible to traditional modes of presentation.
> I would not recommend that complying UA's render <em> with italics,
> I would require it.[/color]

In other words, you'd solve the problem at the receiving end, with the
browser, and not at the authoring end. At the author's end, <em> means
emphasis, not italics. At the other end, the ua receives not <italics>
but <emphasis>. It then translates <emphasis>, as italics if that is
possible and appropriate, or in some other way if not.
[color=blue]
> Unless I have you wrong. Please correct me if I do - believe it or
> not, I'd like you to convince me.[/color]

I cannot convince you of anything. You are free to recognize the www
for what it is, or try to reformulate it into what you want it to be.

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

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: proper use of &lt;cite&gt;


"Brian" <usenet2@juliet remblay.com.inv alid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:fBGKb.7605 76$Tr4.2159835@ attbi_s03...[color=blue]
> Harlan Messinger wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > I don't much care whether a search engine has noted in some
> > database all the nice <em> and <li> tags I've used.[/color]
>
> Do you care whether a search engine notes <title> or <h1>?[/color]

Yes. (I'm not sure what you're going to do with that response! At most, this
causes me to back away from *my* absolute statement that "HTML is about
presentation" and refine it, maybe as far as "much of HTML is largely about
presentation", which is still at odds with "HTML is not about
presentation".)
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > I care whether they benefit the end-user, and they will only do
> > that when they are used for presentational purposes.[/color]
>
> If <title>, <h1>, <h2> etc. help search engines categorize the
> billions of pages on the www, then that *does* help the end-user.[/color]

Granted.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > Do you use <em> and <li> and <blockquote> to entertain the search
> > engine or to facilitate communication with the end user.[/color]
>
> They are not mutually exclusive.[/color]

My question was rhetorical. I will be astonished if tell me that you use
these tags to entertain the search engine, or even with the expectation that
the search engine will be entertained.
[color=blue]
> Unless, of course, you try to make
> HTML into a presentational markup language.[/color]