I seemed to have missed these when going through the <cite> e-mails recently.
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 > examples: > > 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 > necessary. 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. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
