proper use of <cite>

[Haines Brown]

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?

I suppose it really is and I should shift to <cite> and give up the
use oif a custom CSS tag such as a "title" class. However, that also
brings up a question. What is the proper format for a citation? I've
seen it underlined (Chicago, I guess), italicized, or left
unadorned. Is there a prefered format for HTML, or some consensus over
a global standard?
--
Haines Brown
br****@hartford-hwp.com
kb****@arrl.net
www.hartford-hwp.com

[Jukka K. Korpela]

"Firas D." <fd************@firasd.org> wrote:

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).

You could use a urn:isbn: URI for example (or a http: URL referring to
a description of the online resource, as mentioned elsewhere). That
format of URI is defined in RFC 3187. Example:
URN:ISBN:0-395-36341-1

I don't think such URIs have much support in the sense that, for
example, you could ask your browser order you the book from the nearest
library. :-)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Neal]

"Stephen Poley" <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:5c********************************@4ax.com...

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 sure do. Fact is, with a pen I can write things in whatever way
I desire.
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.

I have said that in media where italics cannot be represented,
there ought to be other methods used.

Now, I'm not going tilting at windmills here. I'm arguing a point
of view that challenges the party line, because it's those
discussions that help us refine our viewpoints.

I do feel that separating meaning and presentation is an elegant
way to produce documents on the web. I think it's wise to move in
that direction. And while no one can be totally satisfied, myself
certainly included, I do think the current trend is positive on
the whole.

My brain is beginning to hurt here :) , and so I'll move on from
this topic for now. But thanks, all - there's nothing like a
healthy debate.

[Neal]

"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part>
wrote in message news:3VUKb.757747$HS4.5985794@attbi_s01...

No offense intended, but given how little you know about how Lynx actually works, perhaps you should concede this part of your argument.

None taken. I sure wish I knew how to get Lynx working on my
computer.

Hundreds of years of precedent in reading type, and a millenia plus before of reading in general,

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.

Very true, but the development of modern print conventions
occurred over a long period of time. We need to expect this with
web media as well.

Sounds more to me like every UA for itself. "Useful" isn't enough for me.

Then the www isn't for you, because it's all you can

realistically expect.

I suppose you have a good point. Users should have the choice to
have content appear in the manner it's best for them, even if it
overrides my vision for a page. I'll never argue that point.
Trouble is, to fully be able to implement that, we need (1) a
fully codified system of meaning tags and (2) the userbase at
large educated in how to do this.

Number 2 can only happen over time. Currently, most users have no
clue that they have any control over display. That has to change
before making pages whose presentation can truly be personalized
by the individual user can be of true value. In addition, user
agents need to allow users to make modifications, and currently
there aren't many which do in more than a cursory fashion.

Number 1 is a tough nut. If I write a page in xml, as an example,
I can assign any name I like to the elements so long as I define
them in my DTD. You can create a very similar type of page but
use a totally different set of names. If the user prefers to
present our content to their preference, it is not really
possible (to my knowledge as always, which I expect shall grow
each step of the way) without some codification of what names we
are using. This could lead to an unwieldy set of names.

I fully admit I don't necessarily know where this is going, or
how the obstacles I see toward the goal of total user control
over presentation (which I believe we share) are going to be
overcome, but I hope to see somebody come up with the solution
that makes it all pan out.

In the meantime, I'm content to work in the world in which we
find ourselves. I'm not angry or disillusioned at all - just
very, very curious as to how things can be made better.
... 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.
That's exactly what I said. I don't have a problem marking text
as emphasized based on its meaning. But how it really is, the UA
designer can opt to use italics when italics are possible (as we
both would expect) or can opt NOT to use italics if they so
desire. The recommendation does not demand italics.

Yet it does demand " for <q> and you're totally at ease with
disregarding that meaning markup. I guess I'm curious as to how
you can be. I envy your ease with that.
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.

What's funny is I think you and I have the same goal. We just see
different paths to that goal. The path that's chosen isn't going
to be up to me, but I'll walk it just the same.

Always a pleasure, Brian.

[Neal]

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. ..

I don't think such URIs have much support in the sense that, for example, you could ask your browser order you the book from the nearest library. :-)

THAT would be cool. If you were to quote a movie, you could use
the URI to its page at IMDb. If similar comprehensive catalogs of
other media were online, this would be an excellent use for the
cite attribute.

[Nick Kew]

In article <3VUKb.757747$HS4.5985794@attbi_s01>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote:

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
All of which are configurable. Noting that Lynx on Redhat uses far more
colourful defaults than Lynx on Slackware, I could perhaps make some
inference about distros for windoze converts vs those for unix converts.
(chop - I broadly agree with your post)

--
Nick Kew

[Brian]

Nick Kew wrote:

Brian wrote:

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

All of which are configurable.

I thought as much, but I couldn't find where to configure e.g. which
colors to use, and didn't want to claim it was configurable without
being sure. That just underscores the html as meaning argument.

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

[Stephen Poley]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:43:06 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

On the other hand, I have seen no references to the idea of generating
a list of references from <cite> elements before this.
I've been racking my brains as to where I picked that up, but have drawn
a blank. I suspect it was somewhere on Usenet, though. I may be
mistaken.
It's not a bad
idea, but I think somewhat more informative markup would be needed for
the purpose. Note that <cite> is commonly used for titles of books (for
example) even when the books aren't really cited, as in
"I was reading <cite>Bored of the Rings</cite>, when the phone rang and
...".

But would you defend such usage? It seems rather pointless to me. (And
one of the rather few places where the <i> element would be
appropriate).

--
Stephen Poley

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

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Stephen Poley <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote:

Note that <cite> is commonly used for titles of books (for
example) even when the books aren't really cited, as in
"I was reading <cite>Bored of the Rings</cite>, when the phone rang
and ...".
But would you defend such usage?

Yes I would. I think the <cite> element is best regarded as indicating
the name of a work mentioned in the text, not necessarily citing it.
The HTML 4.01 specification says "citation or reference to other
sources", but the good old HTML 2.0 (a great improvement over its
successors in clarity) probably tells best what the idea has always
been:

"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>."

Apparently this means that this too is a "citation", and therefore the
HTML 4.01 wording can be read in a liberal sense.
It seems rather pointless to me.
(And one of the rather few places where the <i> element would be
appropriate).

There are situations where <i> is appropriate, but I don't think this
is one of them. It would not be wrong here, but suboptimal. I would say
that in cases like the above, if you don't like to use <cite>, then
using quotation marks is best. This gives e.g. speech browsers a chance
to distinguish the book title from normal text - they may be able to
read text in quotes in a special way.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Firas D.]

Neal wrote:

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. ..

I don't think such URIs have much support in the sense that,

for

example, you could ask your browser order you the book from the

nearest

library. :-)

THAT would be cool. If you were to quote a movie, you could use
the URI to its page at IMDb. If similar comprehensive catalogs of
other media were online, this would be an excellent use for the
cite attribute.

Is there one for books? Most people tend to point to Amazon.com, and
it's useful, no doubt, but is there a large database that isn't a seller?

[Firas D.]

Firas D. wrote:

THAT would be cool. If you were to quote a movie, you could use
the URI to its page at IMDb. If similar comprehensive catalogs of
other media were online, this would be an excellent use for the
cite attribute.

Is there one for books? Most people tend to point to Amazon.com, and
it's useful, no doubt, but is there a large database that isn't a seller?

Found this:

http://isbn.nu/welcome.html

To be honest, it looks like amazon is the best way because you get
multiple editorial reviews and user reviews, all sorts of details, etc.

/time to go see what the .nu TLD is about.