Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
<cite> is a single element.
A full bibliographic reference will typically contain a selection from:
Article name
Journal name
Authors name(s)
Editors name(s)
Date of publication
and probably a few other things. As you can see, each item needs to be
kept distinct from each other, so a single container is not enough.
Not necessarily. HTML is a very semantically poor language, which of
course doesn't have any granular elements that can distinguish content
down to that level. All of that would probably fall under a single
<cite>. If you *do* feel that, even though there are no adequate
elements to distinguish these separate bits of the citation, they
should be physically separated in the markup, you could still provide
them as a neutral series of spans.
A suitable micro-format would be great, but the point is that regardless
of what non-sighted users require, a visual user requires a visual
distinction.
Which can then be provided by styling the separate spans. Unless under
"visual user" you also mean "visual user in a text-only or otherwise
CSS incapable browser", which again would bring us back to the core
problem of this argument.
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__________________________________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__________________________________________________________
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
