[whatwg] several messages about <cite>
ian at hixie.ch
Mon Apr 14 15:51:38 PDT 2008
I seemed to have missed these when going through the <cite> e-mails
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, John Lewis wrote:
> A way to mark up titles is something I've always wanted in HTML.
> Currently, <cite> is only appropriate for actual citations. I rarely
> cite books, movies, etc.; I'm usually just talking about them. <i> is
> worse. It's basically meaningless. The best I can do is <i
> class="movie"> or something, and even then it's only appropriate for
> titles that are italicized. Song names (and other minor works) are
> generally written in quotation marks, not italicized. <i class="song">
> is awful.
<cite> has been extended to cover these cases now.
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Matthew Thomas wrote:
> I think distinguishing between ordinary titles and real citations is
> untenable, because there's not a workable dividing line. Consider these
> 1. <p>My favorite book is <cite>The reality
> dysfunction</cite> by Peter F. Hamilton. It begins: <q>Space
> outside the attack cruiser <something>Beezling</something> tore open
> in five places.</q></p>
> 3. <p>My favorite book is <somethingelse>The reality
> dysfunction</somethingelse> by Peter F. Hamilton.</p>
> Why should the title markup have suddenly changed? Do you expect the
> editor of an online magazine's book reviews department, for example, to
> have the presence of mind to change the title markup in the first
> paragraph of a review if she happens to excise the last quote from
> somewhere else in the review?
I agree. The spec is aligned with this thinking as well now.
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> I think that would be acceptable. Although I wonder if CITE would still
> be the right name... Can you still use CITE for persons in that case?
> <p><cite>John E. Simpson</cite> said in <cite>XPath and
> XPointer</cite>: <q>...</q></p>
Per the current spec, you explicitly can't.
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, fantasai wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > > Then would you want different markup for book titles, movie
> > > > titles, play titles, song titles, etc? Or would you just expect
> > > > the script to search IMDB for anything marked up with <cite>?
> > >
> > > Again, I don't really know. I could see a use case for a "type"
> > > attribute (as was suggested earlier in this thread), but that seems
> > > like a slippery slope. Suggestions?
> > If we go with something like a TYPE attribute, I hope we can give it a
> > better name. However, hiding semantics inside the value of an
> > attribute is a poor markup design in humble opinion. (Although it also
> > has some advantages.)
> It's subclassing: the general is sufficient, the specific better. Many
> markup languages use the design, and in this case, I think it's
The class="" attribute can handle this case.
On Sat, 7 May 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> I'd define <cite> meaning a title of work (not a person and not limited
> to quoted works).
The spec matches this now.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg