53 replies [Last post]
putts
putts's picture
Offline
Regular
Michigan
Last seen: 12 years 16 weeks ago
Michigan
Joined: 2007-04-30
Posts: 32
Points: 0

This comes from just reading someone's thread about using the Q tag....

Why do people use the Q tag?

It's always just seemed to tie too much into the content to me. Which doesn't seem like what CSS should even bother about.

I mean.....there's no NUMBER tag for you to put numbers inside in the case that you want to highlight them differently somehow.

I suppose there might be some Semantic value to knowing where a Quote is on the page but, even then, you're not sure the context of that 'quote.' Are they quotes as in quotes from a movie that might have some searchable value or are they stomething their friend said this weekend which, obviously, is only useful to a select audience.

Just seems like overkill with CSS tags to try to classify every piece of information that might require its one formatting. Why not have an ANSWER, QUESTION and RETORT tags.....clearly there's cases where people might want to format those specifically and surely there's a semantic use behind them.

I dont know......just seems like a tag where it's CSS overstepping the boundaries of CSS. Either that or maybe it's just another example of the laziness of CS folks......span class="quote" is just too much work Tongue

Anyhow....sorry if this has been questioned before....I just dont understand devising work-arounds for a tag that seems non-CSS-ish to me Wink

gary.turner
gary.turner's picture
Offline
Moderator
Dallas
Last seen: 22 hours 25 min ago
Dallas
Timezone: GMT-5
Joined: 2004-06-25
Posts: 9743
Points: 3822

Semantic and structural markup

Quotes, inline and block, are tagged because they are both semantically and structurally different from "normal" text. HTML marks content for what it is. This is especially important for non-visual UAs, as adding text quote marks does not imply a quotation.

The problem, as discussed in the other thread is that IE hasn't had enough time to include support for the <q> element. HTML has only had the element since April of 1998. :shrug:

cheers,

gary

If your web page is as clever as you can make it, it's probably too clever for you to debug or maintain.

Phreestyle
Phreestyle's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
Australia
Last seen: 3 years 39 weeks ago
Australia
Timezone: GMT+8
Joined: 2007-05-12
Posts: 235
Points: 6

It seems a bit weird to me

It seems a bit weird to me that the blockquote is not still supported. It seems to me that the markup is the natural place to indicate that this type of text should be rendered differently. With no CSS enabled long quotes will just blend into the rest of text. That's without the haphazard implementation of the standards. Does IE7 support the 'q' tag?

Life's a journey. Enjoy the trip.

christallization
christallization's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
Las Vegas
Last seen: 12 years 18 weeks ago
Las Vegas
Joined: 2007-03-13
Posts: 69
Points: 0

Wow this is new to me

See here I thought I had at least seen all the codes in CSS at least used them once or know about them. But wow I have never heard of the Q.

WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS, STAYS IN VEGAS.. NERDS RULE!!!

Phreestyle
Phreestyle's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
Australia
Last seen: 3 years 39 weeks ago
Australia
Timezone: GMT+8
Joined: 2007-05-12
Posts: 235
Points: 6

It's supposed to be the

It's supposed to be the replacement for the 'blockquote' tag. That is, for quoting big chunks of text from another source.

The problem is IE doesn't include inverted commas (or at least IE6 didn't), so you either get none in IE or two sets in modern browsers.

And, it feels like it should be in the html markup. It just seems like the natural place for it to be.

Life's a journey. Enjoy the trip.

Phreestyle
Phreestyle's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
Australia
Last seen: 3 years 39 weeks ago
Australia
Timezone: GMT+8
Joined: 2007-05-12
Posts: 235
Points: 6

Whoops. Double post.

Whoops. Double post.

Life's a journey. Enjoy the trip.

Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse's picture
Offline
Guru
Victoria British Columbia
Last seen: 45 weeks 4 days ago
Victoria British Columbia
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2005-12-14
Posts: 3570
Points: 675

Phreestyle wrote:It seems a

Phreestyle wrote:
It seems a bit weird to me that the blockquote is not still supported. It seems to me that the markup is the natural place to indicate that this type of text should be rendered differently.

How a tag renders should not even be in your mind when you are writing your html! You are supposed to mark up your content for it's meaning, that is "semantically".

The tags are there for a purpose, but that purpose is not how the tag will be presented by a browser, but to mark up the meaning or structure of the content.

CSS is what you use for style and layout, not html. HTML is for marking up meaning and structure.

Use a given tag if it is appropriate to the meaning or structure of your content. If you don't like the way it renders in common browsers, fix it up with your CSS. That's what CSS is for. That's why they invented it.

Ed Seedhouse

Posting Guidelines

Watch out! I am carrying irony, sarcasm and satire, and know how to use them.

Phreestyle
Phreestyle's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
Australia
Last seen: 3 years 39 weeks ago
Australia
Timezone: GMT+8
Joined: 2007-05-12
Posts: 235
Points: 6

Semantics, in this case,

Semantics, in this case, means indicating that this text should be treated differently by the viewer/reader. That is, it comes from another source.

It is standard practice in academic writing to indicate a long quotation by indenting the text inside inverted commas. That is the accepted, widespread and semantically correct practice. It is no different than having headers larger and bolder than the body text or a list with bullet markers. These latter conventions are supported in the markup why not long quotes?

Life's a journey. Enjoy the trip.

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 4 years 40 weeks ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15668
Points: 2806

Putts there seems a

Putts there seems a confusion around what is CSS and what is HTML , there are no such things as 'CSS tags'. The 'q' tag is a an HTML element and as such has nothing to do with CSS other than how it may be styled/presented by default and by author,so css is not overstepping any bounderies, it is and remains subordinate to semantic markup tags

Phreestyle the 'q' tag does not replace the 'blockquote' tag. Blockquote is designed to convey a lengthy block of quoted text that might run into paragraphs (hence one uses the paragraph tag within it) whereas the 'q' tag is supposed to be for quoting text that would sit within the sentence being written i.e inline with that text and that would not be considered to be a new paragraph

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

putts
putts's picture
Offline
Regular
Michigan
Last seen: 12 years 16 weeks ago
Michigan
Joined: 2007-04-30
Posts: 32
Points: 0

Gary, Do you see what I'm

Gary,

Do you see what I'm saying tho? Does *everything* need its own tag??

Sure, IE not supporting it gives ppl one more reason to bash on MS, but what really is the point of having a tag this focused? Again...do we have a question tag? An answer tag? At some point you have to say "these tags (p, span, b, i, h[1-5] etc.) are enough to accomodate whatever text needs we have.

I just dont understand people's insistance on trying to use it other than to have one more gripe about MS :\

And...yes....I should have been saying HTML instead of CSS. I just always read about it at CSS sites so what I was really meaning to say was "the CSS Community is overstepping itself..."

I'm just asking...
Why complicate your code more by using that is not supported in all browsers when it's not a tag anyone really, really needs in the first place and probably goes too far in the essence of what is necessary markup.

Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse's picture
Offline
Guru
Victoria British Columbia
Last seen: 45 weeks 4 days ago
Victoria British Columbia
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2005-12-14
Posts: 3570
Points: 675

putts wrote:Do you see what

putts wrote:
Do you see what I'm saying tho? Does *everything* need its own tag??

No, but then everything doesn't.

Quote:

Sure, IE not supporting it gives ppl one more reason to bash on MS, but what really is the point of having a tag this focused?

Well, Microseft was on the team that developed modern html, so I doubt they were looking to bash IE. They just followed up with a broken default rendering of that tag. But presentation is entirely beside the point of whether the tag is useful.

Quote:
Again...do we have a question tag? An answer tag? At some point you have to say "these tags (p, span, b, i, h[1-5] etc.) are enough to accomodate whatever text needs we have.

And that's what happened. The team who specified html had a reason why they thought quotes should have a tag, so they specified one. They didn't. apparently, have a reason to give the other things their own tag, so they didn't.

The point of semantic html is to allow computers to extract meaning from marked up text. If you are writing a paper for school, for instance, you better have your quotes all marked plainly, and attributed.
If you then put that paper on the web, the designers of html saw a need for a computer to be able to know that it is a quote as well, so they designed a tag for that purpose.

Quote:

I just dont understand people's insistance on trying to use it other than to have one more gripe about MS

Well if you put up a scientific paper on the web, for instance, and you forget to markup your quotes properly, you may very well end up charged with plagiarism. Not a minor matter in academia!

Quote:

And...yes....I should have been saying HTML instead of CSS. I just always read about it at CSS sites so what I was really meaning to say was "the CSS Community is overstepping itself..."

But the "CSS community" (whatever that is) has nothing to do with it!

Quote:

Why complicate your code more by using that is not supported in all browsers when it's not a tag anyone really, really needs in the first place and probably goes too far in the essence of what is necessary markup.

When the next scientific or academic paper you post on the web gets hit with a charge of plagiarism, then tell us it isn't necessary!

Oh, you never expect to do that? Well, neither do I of course. But HTML wasn't written with only you or I in mind. It was written with the needs, among other things, of the academic community in mind, though.

For instance, if I want to check a long paper in a web page for plagiarism I might write a program to parse the code on that page looking for text strings that might be unattributed quotes. If I find a string that, upon dictionary lookup, turns out to be exactly the same as some other text by someone else, then if it isn't enclosed in Q tags my program might trigger an alarm forcing me to check that piece of text myself. If it is inside a Q element, however, my program won't trigger an alarm and I'll save myself some work, possibly a lot of work.

With plagiarism becoming a bigger and bigger deal in academia these days, the Q tag seems very pertinent indeed, at least to me. Whole careers are ended by unattributed quotes, you know.

Ed Seedhouse

Posting Guidelines

Watch out! I am carrying irony, sarcasm and satire, and know how to use them.

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 4 years 40 weeks ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15668
Points: 2806

This arcane list of

This arcane list of structured text elements gives you some idea of the thinking and purpose behind semantic tags:

EM:
Indicates emphasis.
STRONG:
Indicates stronger emphasis.
CITE:
Contains a citation or a reference to other sources.
DFN:
Indicates that this is the defining instance of the enclosed term.
CODE:
Designates a fragment of computer code.
SAMP:
Designates sample output from programs, scripts, etc.
KBD:
Indicates text to be entered by the user.
VAR:
Indicates an instance of a variable or program argument.
ABBR:
Indicates an abbreviated form (e.g., WWW, HTTP, URI, Mass., etc.).
ACRONYM:
Indicates an acronym (e.g., WAC, radar, etc.).

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

gary.turner
gary.turner's picture
Offline
Moderator
Dallas
Last seen: 22 hours 25 min ago
Dallas
Timezone: GMT-5
Joined: 2004-06-25
Posts: 9743
Points: 3822

Others have answered these,

Others have answered these, but since you addressed them to me, I'll add a bit.

putts wrote:
Gary,

Do you see what I'm saying tho? Does *everything* need its own tag??Everything? Probably not, but there are serious dialogues about which new elements should be added in html5.

Quote:
Sure, IE not supporting it gives ppl one more reason to bash on MS, but what really is the point of having a tag this focused? Again...do we have a question tag? An answer tag? At some point you have to say "these tags (p, span, b, i, h[1-5] etc.) are enough to accomodate whatever text needs we have.

HTML is a very sparse markup language. Compare to LaTeX, where you would have \part (the \ is the tag delimiter), \chapter, \section, \subsection, \subsubsection, \paragraph, \subparagraph and \abstract. All of which are variations on html's div or p. Believe me, there is good reason for each. Hugo cited other html examples of semantic tags. That you don't have proximate need for them does not mean they have no use nor should be ignored when one or the other is the semantic tag to use.

Quote:
I just dont understand people's insistance on trying to use it other than to have one more gripe about MS :\

We don't use markup or css properties that IE doesn't support in order to bash IE. We bash IE because of its piss-poor support for nine year old specifications that MSFT was party to writing.

Quote:
<snip>I'm just asking...
Why complicate your code more by using that is not supported in all browsers when it's not a tag anyone really, really needs in the first place and probably goes too far in the essence of what is necessary markup.

IE is the only browser that does not support the q element. And, yes, every author that includes inline quoted text in his document should properly mark it as a quote, <q>.

cheers,

gary

If your web page is as clever as you can make it, it's probably too clever for you to debug or maintain.

Chris..S
Chris..S's picture
Offline
Moderator
Last seen: 7 years 3 weeks ago
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-02-22
Posts: 6078
Points: 173

putts wrote:Do you see what

putts wrote:
Do you see what I'm saying tho? Does *everything* need its own tag??

Some people would argue, "yes" - and in fact that is what XML gives us. For (x)HTML as a common, but restricted, grammar, we need a number of different elements. And, yes, you could (and I am sure people do) argue as to what merits a separate tag and what doesn't.

That is kind of a pointless argument, as for whatever reason, the <Q> element made it in. Now it is there, we should really use it where appropriate.

FWIW, <Q> is the inline element, and <BLOCKQUOTE> is the block element. Do we need two? I guess that is something else standards wonks could argue about ...

FYI, its H1-H6 Wink

roytheboy
roytheboy's picture
Offline
Guru
North Wales, UK
Last seen: 6 years 11 weeks ago
North Wales, UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-09-18
Posts: 2233
Points: 41

It's a shame we don't have a

It's a shame we don't have a <bullsh*t> tag, or a <lie> tag, or a <i_have_no_idea_what_i_am_talking_about_but_i_am_going_to_talk
_with_authority_regardless> tag.

Life's a b*tch and then you die!

Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse's picture
Offline
Guru
Victoria British Columbia
Last seen: 45 weeks 4 days ago
Victoria British Columbia
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2005-12-14
Posts: 3570
Points: 675

roytheboy wrote:It's a shame

roytheboy wrote:
It's a shame we don't have a <bullsh*t> tag, or a <lie> tag, or a <i_have_no_idea_what_i_am_talking_about_but_i_am_going_to_talk
_with_authority_regardless> tag.

Heh - yeah I'd definitely find those handy!

Ed Seedhouse

Posting Guidelines

Watch out! I am carrying irony, sarcasm and satire, and know how to use them.

Phreestyle
Phreestyle's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
Australia
Last seen: 3 years 39 weeks ago
Australia
Timezone: GMT+8
Joined: 2007-05-12
Posts: 235
Points: 6

Hugo wrote: Phreestyle the

Hugo wrote:

Phreestyle the 'q' tag does not replace the 'blockquote' tag. Blockquote is designed to convey a lengthy block of quoted text that might run into paragraphs (hence one uses the paragraph tag within it) whereas the 'q' tag is supposed to be for quoting text that would sit within the sentence being written i.e inline with that text and that would not be considered to be a new paragraph

Thanks for this clarification, Hugo. I was under the impression that the 'bockquote' tag had been (or is to be) deprecated, so had ceased using it. I found the W3C page to be a little confusing on the issue. Is it still okay to use 'blockquote' for long (more than 4 lines) quotes?

I have a job converting some academic texts into markup and want to make sure they will be as future proof as it is possible to be.

Sorry to harp on about this, but it is pretty important to me as I would like to get some more of this kind of work.

Life's a journey. Enjoy the trip.

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 4 years 40 weeks ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15668
Points: 2806

As far as I'm aware the

As far as I'm aware the 'blockquote' tag isn't due to be deprecated, partly as the continued development of html is basically stalled there is discussion and a working group set up for the so called HTML5, but whether anything will come to fruition from this is anyones guess and even if it does it will be a long way off, but it may be woth checking out the proposals so far for HTML5 (not that they will mean much at this stage)

So, yes blockquote is what is used for a block of text constituting a quote, along with possibly the 'cite' tag to cite the source either used as an attribute of blockquote (href link) or/and as a tag in it's own right to cite author or publication.

You might have been confused by this typically lacking in clarification footnote on the tag

Quote:

"The usage of BLOCKQUOTE to indent text is deprecated in favor of style sheets"
- http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html#h-9.2.2

Which referes to the bad practise of using the blockquote tag to format text due to it's default block indenting, so it's used not to quote text but as a visual formatting aid 'Bad'!

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

Phreestyle
Phreestyle's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
Australia
Last seen: 3 years 39 weeks ago
Australia
Timezone: GMT+8
Joined: 2007-05-12
Posts: 235
Points: 6

Yeah, that's exactly the

Yeah, that's exactly the line that threw me. I saw 'deprecated' in there and freaked out.

Thanks again for the information. You guys are, without a doubt, the best CSS resource I have found anywhere. So thanks heaps for all your work.

Life's a journey. Enjoy the trip.

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 4 years 40 weeks ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15668
Points: 2806

As a little aside to this

As a little aside to this discussion on 'quoting'

<aside cite="http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-blockquote ">
It perhaps helps to note a different slant or explanation on quoting in that quotes are used to denote two distinct things, on the one hand conversational passages within text and the other to quote text written by another author or from a separate source.

the former is the 'q' tag and the latter covered by the 'blockquote' tag.

In the opinion of the whatwg guys 'q' tag ought perhaps to be better served by a 'dialog' tag.
</aside>

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

putts
putts's picture
Offline
Regular
Michigan
Last seen: 12 years 16 weeks ago
Michigan
Joined: 2007-04-30
Posts: 32
Points: 0

Chris..S wrote:putts

Chris..S wrote:
putts wrote:
Do you see what I'm saying tho? Does *everything* need its own tag??

Some people would argue, "yes" - and in fact that is what XML gives us.

Right. That's a markup language designed around complete flexibility - the ability to, basically, properly tag every piece of information on that particular document as opposed to using a different tag for every possible type of information that you might have on a page.

YAY for Q tag. It's vital importance to the world of internet markup wins another battle! Down with the infidels that would dare not use it!! Up with the google searching to make it display correctly in all browsers!! BOO to anyone who's simple mind would suggest just using a Span.....surely they are the bane of society.

*gives up*

Tyssen
Tyssen's picture
Offline
Moderator
Brisbane
Last seen: 5 years 2 days ago
Brisbane
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-05-01
Posts: 8201
Points: 1386

putts wrote:*gives

putts wrote:
*gives up*

Good. Can we get back to some useful discussion now?

How to get help
Post a link. If you can't post a link, jsFiddle it.
My blog | My older articles | CSS Reference

Chris..S
Chris..S's picture
Offline
Moderator
Last seen: 7 years 3 weeks ago
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-02-22
Posts: 6078
Points: 173

putts wrote:It's vital

putts wrote:
It's vital importance to the world of internet markup wins another battle! Down with the infidels that would dare not use it!! Up with the google searching to make it display correctly in all browsers!! BOO to anyone who's simple mind would suggest just using a Span.....surely they are the bane of society.

*gives up*

Wow, putts, you seemed such a grown up guy. :?

This has been a pretty sensible discussion (so far). A number of people here disagree with you, they've understood your arguments and they still disagree with you. I guess you've understood the counter arguments and you disagree with them. Hopefully the discussion will prove useful to others and allow them to make up their own minds.

Tyssen
Tyssen's picture
Offline
Moderator
Brisbane
Last seen: 5 years 2 days ago
Brisbane
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-05-01
Posts: 8201
Points: 1386

The reality of the matter is

The reality of the matter is the <q> tag is in the HTML spec. It's not something dreamt up by this mythical CSS community that you're talking about; it was implemented by the W3C. No-one's forcing you to use it so if you don't 'get it', don't use it. If you feel that strongly about the fact that it shouldn't be there, join up to the HTML Working Group and have your say.

How to get help
Post a link. If you can't post a link, jsFiddle it.
My blog | My older articles | CSS Reference

putts
putts's picture
Offline
Regular
Michigan
Last seen: 12 years 16 weeks ago
Michigan
Joined: 2007-04-30
Posts: 32
Points: 0

Chris..S wrote:putts

Chris..S wrote:
putts wrote:
It's vital importance to the world of internet markup wins another battle! Down with the infidels that would dare not use it!! Up with the google searching to make it display correctly in all browsers!! BOO to anyone who's simple mind would suggest just using a Span.....surely they are the bane of society.

*gives up*

Wow, putts, you seemed such a grown up guy. :?

This has been a pretty sensible discussion (so far). A number of people here disagree with you, they've understood your arguments and they still disagree with you. I guess you've understood the counter arguments and you disagree with them. Hopefully the discussion will prove useful to others and allow them to make up their own minds.

Chris, I just know that this isn't going anywhere :\

I get the feeling that everyone out here would be happy if there was a tag for every possible piece of information that they might have to put on a web page.

I understand everyone's point of "it's in the HTML spec...it's not the fault of the web devs" but that is not what I'm getting at. What I am trying to understand is why people use it.

It's in the spec...yeah...I understand that. But what if there were 1000 different tags pointed at such rare usages as the Q tag? Would we use those too? Especially considering that they're not supported by all browsers?

What I was hoping to hear was "yeah....it's probably more specific than HTML tags need to be....there's no real need to have a tag just for that" but noone seems to share my sentiment. Most respondants seem to believe we'd be better off with tags for everything :\ I just dont get "that"....not why or why not the Q tag exists.

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 4 years 40 weeks ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15668
Points: 2806

I don't know about happy if

I don't know about happy if there was a tag for every bit of information, but if we are to describe content with semantic meaning through the use of this tag manner then there is probably a good case for a review of the ones that are available (as being tackled by the whatwg guys)and whether they suit things as they stand now or whether we need greater definition. I would personally prefer a greater range so that I don't find myself staring at markup wondering in the back of my mind whether or not things would make more sense with few more tags to use or wondering how to describe content with the semantic tags available which at times just seem too loose and vague.

As for the 'q' tag part of the reason earlier that I posted that list of text formatting tags (which probably went unnoticed) was by way of highlighting some of the seemingly odd array of tags available and of which I have probably never used much more than a third of, but they highlight the thinking - to my mind- of the thought and purpose that formed the basis for original inclusion and which was to all intent and purpose an academic one and in that sense semantic tagging has clarity , and the need for a definite means of quoting/citing sources being a thing of primary importance (as I think mentioned earlier by Ed) also seems to make sense.

So it does seem as though there is a reason that the two tags exist and contrary to your statement it's not too specific but just exactly as specific as it needs to be.

Still if you don't want to use it then you don't have to there is no instruction that you must and you can't be invalidated for not using the tag.

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

roytheboy
roytheboy's picture
Offline
Guru
North Wales, UK
Last seen: 6 years 11 weeks ago
North Wales, UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-09-18
Posts: 2233
Points: 41

putts - at the risk of

putts - at the risk of repetition, some users of the World Wide Web frequently use tags that you find obscure. The reason that the blockquote and Q tags exist has been explained in admirable detail yet you still seem upset that the forum regulars are happy to have these tags.

...and who mentioned being happy to have tags for everything? You say "But what if there were 1000 different tags pointed at such rare usages as the Q tag?" but there aren't. So why argue about it?

Why can't you accept that not everyone uses the web how you use the web?

Life's a b*tch and then you die!

Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse's picture
Offline
Guru
Victoria British Columbia
Last seen: 45 weeks 4 days ago
Victoria British Columbia
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2005-12-14
Posts: 3570
Points: 675

putts wrote:I get the

putts wrote:
I get the feeling that everyone out here would be happy if there was a tag for every possible piece of information that they might have to put on a web page.

Well, no one here has said anything of the type, so perhaps this is just your delusion. If so that makes it your problem, right?

Ed Seedhouse

Posting Guidelines

Watch out! I am carrying irony, sarcasm and satire, and know how to use them.

putts
putts's picture
Offline
Regular
Michigan
Last seen: 12 years 16 weeks ago
Michigan
Joined: 2007-04-30
Posts: 32
Points: 0

roytheboy wrote:Why can't

roytheboy wrote:
Why can't you accept that not everyone uses the web how you use the web?

Because, in my head, using Q is similar to hard-coding something in some weird fashion or another and the Developer in me just cant bear it.

In a developer sense, it feels wrong to me to use a markup (def: a detailed instruction, usually written on a manuscript to be typeset, concerning style of type, makeup of pages, and the like) to describe the contents of the tag.

And when I think of "Semantics" I think of W3C's Semantic Web project, not tagging something with a particular tag....a tag which, again, is supposed to used as markup, not definition.....but describing the contents of the web page in a totally separate file designed solely for that purpose. I guess that I just think of it as that is how it should be done.

I guess my argument is more of a "What should be done by Markup" as opposed to targeting Q directly....that's more of my prime example.

I'm prolly just off in some dream world where the HTML file is the styling of the data and there exists another level of "code" to describe the data so that the definition and styling do not have to share the same level of existance. *sigh* That will be the day!

Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse's picture
Offline
Guru
Victoria British Columbia
Last seen: 45 weeks 4 days ago
Victoria British Columbia
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2005-12-14
Posts: 3570
Points: 675

putts wrote:In a developer

putts wrote:
In a developer sense, it feels wrong to me to use a markup (def: a detailed instruction, usually written on a manuscript to be typeset, concerning style of type, makeup of pages, and the like) to describe the contents of the tag.

Well B is depreciated and you shouldn't use it. It was depreciated exactly because it was not considered semantically meaningful replaced with STRONG, which in general you should use instead of B.

Quote:

I guess my argument is more of a "What should be done by Markup" as opposed to targeting Q directly....that's more of my prime example.

I'm prolly just off in some dream world where the HTML file is the styling of the data and there exists another level of "code" to describe the data so that the definition and styling do not have to share the same level of existance. *sigh* That will be the day!

Yeah, that is a dreamworld because it was decided otherwise long ago. You are not supposed to be using HTML for presentation at all. CSS is for presentation, HTML is for description. If you want it the way you say get into your time machine and hop back to the 1990's when it was that way. It was changed for a reason, that reason being that it didn't work very well.

Ed Seedhouse

Posting Guidelines

Watch out! I am carrying irony, sarcasm and satire, and know how to use them.

roytheboy
roytheboy's picture
Offline
Guru
North Wales, UK
Last seen: 6 years 11 weeks ago
North Wales, UK
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-09-18
Posts: 2233
Points: 41

putts - I kinda see what

putts - I kinda see what you're saying, kinda. I look upon (X)HTML markup as putting the page content into context. Not position or styling, but context. The Q tag, like the STRONG tag and all the others, puts the text into context and has nothing to do with styling, although it is logical to map the context to the style. That's what 'semantics' means to me, and that is the most logical and portable way of treated the content that I can see, which is obviously why the current system evolved as it did. It's a usable half-way house to full-blown XML and it gets my vote Smile

Life's a b*tch and then you die!

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 4 years 40 weeks ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15668
Points: 2806

Putts I really think the

Putts I really think the crux of the problem here is that you are confusing semantics tags with styling still and it harks back (with respect) to your initial post and the terminology used therein.
It's been said but once again Smile semantics has absolutely nothing to do with styling, that styling is applied to a semantic tag by author and often by default is another matter and if all styling is removed you are still left with a contextual description of the content.

Er 'b' is not deprecated is it? 'b' and 'strong' are not really the same thing one does not replace the other. 'b' is a typographic tag ,'strong' a semantic one defining extra weight must be attached to the contained text but that doesn't - although defaults to emboldened - have to be emboldened, both have their uses, although of course " but it's presentational " will no doubt resound Smile.

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse's picture
Offline
Guru
Victoria British Columbia
Last seen: 45 weeks 4 days ago
Victoria British Columbia
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2005-12-14
Posts: 3570
Points: 675

Hugo wrote:Er 'b' is not

Hugo wrote:
Er 'b' is not deprecated is it?

No it isn't - I made a mistake in saying so.

Quote:
'b' and 'strong' are not really the same thing one does not replace the other. 'b' is a typographic tag ,'strong' a semantic one defining extra weight must be attached to the contained text but that doesn't - although defaults to emboldened - have to be emboldened, both have their uses, although of course " but it's presentational " will no doubt resound Smile.

Right. That's what I really meant. You believe me don't you? :blushing:

Ed Seedhouse

Posting Guidelines

Watch out! I am carrying irony, sarcasm and satire, and know how to use them.

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 4 years 40 weeks ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15668
Points: 2806

I do believe you and admit

I do believe you Smile and admit myself that I tend to use 'strong' probably when I ought to have used 'b' but am never 100% sure of the presentational argument that ensues with it's use.

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse's picture
Offline
Guru
Victoria British Columbia
Last seen: 45 weeks 4 days ago
Victoria British Columbia
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2005-12-14
Posts: 3570
Points: 675

Hugo wrote:I do believe you

Hugo wrote:
I do believe you Smile and admit myself that I tend to use 'strong' probably when I ought to have used 'b' but am never 100% sure of the presentational argument that ensues with it's use.

Well I find the arguments a bit subtle so I just tend to treat B and I as if they were depreciated, and that's probably why I misspoke earlier.

Also, "depreciated" seems to be a rather confusing use of the word when a word like "eliminated" seems to me to be closer to what is meant.

Ed Seedhouse

Posting Guidelines

Watch out! I am carrying irony, sarcasm and satire, and know how to use them.

putts
putts's picture
Offline
Regular
Michigan
Last seen: 12 years 16 weeks ago
Michigan
Joined: 2007-04-30
Posts: 32
Points: 0

Hugo wrote:Putts I really

Hugo wrote:
Putts I really think the crux of the problem here is that you are confusing semantics tags with styling still and it harks back (with respect) to your initial post and the terminology used therein.
It's been said but once again Smile semantics has absolutely nothing to do with styling, that styling is applied to a semantic tag by author and often by default is another matter and if all styling is removed you are still left with a contextual description of the content.

Okay, let's go at this a new angle.

Can someone explain to me the use of having "semantic tags" in HTML? If the answer is that there are/can be utilized by Search engines then I guess my retort to that would be that it might be a decent crutch but to get the web really walking on two feet, W3C's Semantic Web technology is the path that we should be trying to go down. I cant remember who said that "I need to get in a time machine and go back to the 1990's" but I would argue that I need to get in that time machine and go to the 2010 or 20s when we'll finally be off our crutch and leaving HTML/CSS to do what they do......Markup and Styling....and rely on XML for semantically definig the content of the page.

Quote:
Dictionary.com

HTML
HyperText Markup Language: a set of standards, a variety of SGML, used to tag the elements of a hypertext document. It is the standard protocol for formatting and displaying documents on the World Wide Web.

I mean, if people are suggesting to me that I should basically sit down, be quiet and accept this ^ technology as the ultimate in defining the content on the web, I just dont see that as an acceptable answer.

Ed,
I hear what you're saying about the B tag. There seems to be some strong push (forgive the bad pun) to use STRONG instead. For instance, if you have text highlighted in Dreamweaver and you hit Ctrl+B it puts it in a STRONG tag. I dont fully understand it. Strong is for when you want to add emphasis and B is when you want to bold. See...silly me....I always thought I was bolding things because I wanted emphasis on them. I know.....I'm like totally crazy, right? hahahaha I just think some important CSS person (dont know who defines this, but I'm sure they must exist) said "why dont we use STRONG instead of B?" and everyone was like "GENIUS...pure GENIUS" and thus we were all called idiots until we stopped using B.
Heh.....I dont know.....ya got me. I like Chris' answer....I just dont know when I would add strong emphasis to something without just bolding it but I'm sure 10% of people might.....not sure why they tell the other 90 of us we have to use it too. Meh.

Ed Seedhouse
Ed Seedhouse's picture
Offline
Guru
Victoria British Columbia
Last seen: 45 weeks 4 days ago
Victoria British Columbia
Timezone: GMT-8
Joined: 2005-12-14
Posts: 3570
Points: 675

putts wrote:Can someone

putts wrote:
Can someone explain to me the use of having "semantic tags" in HTML?

It's the old computer science concept of "separation of concerns". Now that we have CSS for presentation we can free HTML from it's old presentational perspective, which was not it's original design or intent but was added on during the "browser wars" of the early 1990's and take it back to it's original intent, which was indeed to mark up content for it's meaning.

Quote:
I hear what you're saying about the B tag.

Well no, as a matter of fact I think you didn't hear me at all.

Quote:
There seems to be some strong push (forgive the bad pun) to use STRONG instead.

And there is a really good reason for that. You seem to think that HTML is meant as a visual medium, but it isn't. It is intended to be display independent or at least display neutral.

What is the meaning of "B" or "I" when speaking? How does one speak in italic? HTML is intended to work as well when the browser is speaking the text as when it is visually displaying the text. How does a vocal browser for blind folks interpret a call for an italic font? The web is not only not print, it is not even visual. It is designed from the ground up (not always successfully) to be independent of it's display media. HTML is not for marking up visual display, or aural display, it is meant to markup transmitted content for it's meaning and structure.

Just because most web users see to some extent and most use visual media to display content does not mean that all do. HTML is meant to be display independent, and to work as well when the display is audio and not visual. Which is why the "B" and "I" tags are not, in general, good tags to use when what you really intend is to emphasize or to strongly emphasize some of the content.

Ed Seedhouse

Posting Guidelines

Watch out! I am carrying irony, sarcasm and satire, and know how to use them.

gary.turner
gary.turner's picture
Offline
Moderator
Dallas
Last seen: 22 hours 25 min ago
Dallas
Timezone: GMT-5
Joined: 2004-06-25
Posts: 9743
Points: 3822

Going further off topic--or maybe not

Both <b> and <i> elements are, as Hugo said, typographic elements. It can be strongly argued that they are presentational and have no place in a structural/semantic markup language. But, still … .

Among English speakers (and that loosely includes those from the Isles), typographic convention[1] is used to convey an implied semantic value. We would write a foreign language phrase italicized, not to emphasize, but to indicate its foreign nature. Eg., you might write, <q>(Smile)Failing to thank your hostess is a faux pas[2].</q> Italics also indicate article titles, while journal, book and magazine names are made bold. The reader infers the semantic value from the context. The underscore as a typographic convention has been preempted on the web to imply a link, so is no longer appropriate in its historic role.

cheers,

gary

[1] That's emphasized with the em element.

[2] That's simply italicized with the i element.

If your web page is as clever as you can make it, it's probably too clever for you to debug or maintain.

Chris..S
Chris..S's picture
Offline
Moderator
Last seen: 7 years 3 weeks ago
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-02-22
Posts: 6078
Points: 173

In XHTML 1.1 there is a text

In XHTML 1.1 there is a text module (strong, em, all those phrase elements) and a presentation module (b, i, tt, etc).

As I see it, if I have properly prepared copy I try and mark it up in the most semantic way I can. If the owners of the site will be able to add/modify content then its best to keep the mark up as simple as possible and to use more presentational tags. When using a WYSIWYG html editor, its presentational markup that makes most sense.

putts, I often see emphasis in web pages without bold, but with a strongly contrasting colour instead.

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 4 years 40 weeks ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15668
Points: 2806

You are driving me nuts here

You are driving me nuts here Smile you keep saying things like "some CSS person" in reference to flipping html markup tags.

Quote:
HTML/CSS to do what they do......Markup and Styling....and rely on XML for semantically definig the content of the page.

:? guess you could do; so your going to perform XSlT transforms? you're getting in to deep stuff here Smile

Quote:
Okay, let's go at this a new angle.

No lets not Smile

You seem to be extracting arbitrary quotes now and I'm just getting tired Smile

I'm not sure where we have been saying that you have to accept anything as the ultimate in defining the content, go ahead and work in XML but I'm not sure you understand all that is meant by XML.

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

putts
putts's picture
Offline
Regular
Michigan
Last seen: 12 years 16 weeks ago
Michigan
Joined: 2007-04-30
Posts: 32
Points: 0

Ed Seedhouse wrote:putts

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
putts wrote:

Well no, as a matter of fact I think you didn't hear me at all.

I was agreeing with that there was a push in the last few years to use STRONG more than B. Which is, I'm assuming, why you originally said B was deprecated.

And...to everyone...that last part of my last post was meant to be sarcastic and flippant but it appears to have been taken way too seriously. I dont really care about B or STRONG....I just find it all kinda funny Tongue

Hugo, I'm not sure where you are going with the whole XML talk.
W3C's Semantic Web technology uses a format similar to XML as a type of "behind the scenes" definer page for each page in their environmnents. This page describes what content is on the web page that it is attached. That XML doc is picked up by their services and scanned to build search lists as opposed (and in addition to) just scanning the text of the HTML output.

Here's what I see as the pieces that will make up a web page in the future
HTML - the content and structure of the file
CSS - the styling of the page
RDF (XML) - the semantic description of the content on the page.

To me, trying to use HTML to define semantics is just slowing down process and maybe that's why it frustrates me so.

I dont have many plans to use XSLT....some other guys in my shop use, but I haven't really toyed with it enough to know more than what it can do but not much of how you do it. But...yeah...that's probably beyond this conversation though I suppose some ppl would argue that this is exactly what XSLT is for. Smile

thepineapplehead
thepineapplehead's picture
Offline
Guru
Last seen: 1 year 8 weeks ago
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-06-30
Posts: 9668
Points: 801

Putts, I'm not sure by your

Putts, I'm not sure by your logic what HTML would even be used for in your world.

If CSS is for styling the markup, and the XML files contain the content wrapped in tags, what would the HTML even do?

Verschwindende wrote:
  • CSS doesn't make pies

Tyssen
Tyssen's picture
Offline
Moderator
Brisbane
Last seen: 5 years 2 days ago
Brisbane
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-05-01
Posts: 8201
Points: 1386

Hugo wrote:You are driving

Hugo wrote:
You are driving me nuts here Smile you keep saying things like "some CSS person" in reference to flipping html markup tags.

You're not the only one. :rolleyes:

How to get help
Post a link. If you can't post a link, jsFiddle it.
My blog | My older articles | CSS Reference

Tyssen
Tyssen's picture
Offline
Moderator
Brisbane
Last seen: 5 years 2 days ago
Brisbane
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-05-01
Posts: 8201
Points: 1386

Ed Seedhouse wrote:Also,

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Also, "depreciated" seems to be a rather confusing use of the word when a word like "eliminated" seems to me to be closer to what is meant.

That's cos it's not depreciated, it's deprecated. There's a difference.

How to get help
Post a link. If you can't post a link, jsFiddle it.
My blog | My older articles | CSS Reference

Tyssen
Tyssen's picture
Offline
Moderator
Brisbane
Last seen: 5 years 2 days ago
Brisbane
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-05-01
Posts: 8201
Points: 1386

putts wrote:To me, trying to

putts wrote:
To me, trying to use HTML to define semantics is just slowing down process and maybe that's why it frustrates me so.

Like I said: take it up with the HTMLWG cos you're the only one here who thinks like that and this thread has long gone past the point of being completely pointless. We get it: you don't like it; let's move on.

How to get help
Post a link. If you can't post a link, jsFiddle it.
My blog | My older articles | CSS Reference

putts
putts's picture
Offline
Regular
Michigan
Last seen: 12 years 16 weeks ago
Michigan
Joined: 2007-04-30
Posts: 32
Points: 0

thepineapplehead

thepineapplehead wrote:
Putts, I'm not sure by your logic what HTML would even be used for in your world.

If CSS is for styling the markup, and the XML files contain the content wrapped in tags, what would the HTML even do?

Quote:

HTML (āch'tē-ěm-ěl') Pronunciation Key
n. A markup language used to structure text and multimedia documents and to set up hypertext links between documents, used extensively on the World Wide Web.

A novel idea....I know....using it simply for what it was created to do and not trying to make it do things that are much better done within something else (such as RDF and XML).

But....as everyone here has made abundantly clear, I'm way out in left field on this....so I wont bother you all with it any further.

Hugo
Hugo's picture
Offline
Moderator
London
Last seen: 4 years 40 weeks ago
London
Joined: 2004-06-06
Posts: 15668
Points: 2806

Putts stop being petulant

Putts stop being petulant and stop throwing those toys out of the pram Smile Tongue

It's not that you are that left field and to an extent what you are trying to convey is interesting and we are devoid of stimulating discussions at times, but also at times it's difficult to follow some of the logic, which in my case may well be myself at fault.

Thing is with HTML is that it was created to do what it does and what we do with it i.e use 'q' tags when we're feeling perverse.

I do take your point but at some stage one has to convert to HTML what then happens with the tag structure in HTML if we have described content in XML form?

I have to admit though that in depth discussions on XML are not my thing I have scant experience other than the little I have read, and that certainly isn't enough to hold fourth in a debate on the subject.

Before you make your first post it is vital that you READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please post ALL your code - both CSS & HTML - in [code] tags
Please validate and ensure you have included a full Doctype before posting.
Why validate? Read Me

thepineapplehead
thepineapplehead's picture
Offline
Guru
Last seen: 1 year 8 weeks ago
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2004-06-30
Posts: 9668
Points: 801

Let's say I have a random

Let's say I have a random quote generator which pulls information from this xml file:

Charles Dickens
October 7th, 1924
blah blah blah

now if the Q tag didn't exist in HTML, how exactly would you suggest parsing that into a HTML document?

Verschwindende wrote:
  • CSS doesn't make pies

Phreestyle
Phreestyle's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
Australia
Last seen: 3 years 39 weeks ago
Australia
Timezone: GMT+8
Joined: 2007-05-12
Posts: 235
Points: 6

Maybe part of the issue here

Maybe part of the issue here is that the 'q' is one tag (the only?) that actually adds punctuation to the enclosed text.

I use the 'q' and 'blockquote' tags quite often in my work, and find them to be absolutely vital, so I would hate to see them go.

However, I do not like the way the 'q' adds inverted commas automagically in modern browsers. I actually prefer (horror of horrors) the way IE renders this tag. This is mainly because I think punctuation should be under the control of the author and part of the markedup text. I also don't particuarly like 'ol' for the same reason. If I want a numbered list I should have to add the numbers myself.

Life's a journey. Enjoy the trip.

Tyssen
Tyssen's picture
Offline
Moderator
Brisbane
Last seen: 5 years 2 days ago
Brisbane
Timezone: GMT+10
Joined: 2004-05-01
Posts: 8201
Points: 1386

Phreestyle wrote:If I want a

Phreestyle wrote:
If I want a numbered list I should have to add the numbers myself.

Why? Because you can't style the numbers (or letters) as easily as you'd like?

As far as the quote marks go, you can turn them off in modern browsers with CSS and then you're free to add them in manually which is probably the best way to go considering that IE won't do it for you.

How to get help
Post a link. If you can't post a link, jsFiddle it.
My blog | My older articles | CSS Reference

Phreestyle
Phreestyle's picture
Offline
Enthusiast
Australia
Last seen: 3 years 39 weeks ago
Australia
Timezone: GMT+8
Joined: 2007-05-12
Posts: 235
Points: 6

Tyssen wrote: Why? Because

Tyssen wrote:

Why? Because you can't style the numbers (or letters) as easily as you'd like?

I just feel the numbers should be part of the original text - ie. they are part of the meaning. A bit pedantic I know, but that's the world I work in. I work with people who are obsessed with the purity of the text.

Life's a journey. Enjoy the trip.