Comments on: Quoting Tables; a Question of Semantics

By: Glen Mailer

Glen Mailer — Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:32:40 +0000

Hate to be picky, but might I point out that of the three, only the first is actually valid. Unless I’m mistaken you must either use thead, tfoot and tbody, or none of the three at all.

By: Gabriel Mihalache

Gabriel Mihalache — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:51:02 +0000

No idea, but I just wanted to say that I really love your obsession with the semantics of it all… you managed the record of raising an issue with completly non-rendered information! Wow!
This is the kind of attitude that will push XHTML2.0 and the semnatic web forward. Keep up the good/obsessive work!

By: Seth Thomas Rasmussen

Seth Thomas Rasmussen — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:30:47 +0000

My favorite number: #2!

You left a comment using the cite attribute in the manner of #3 on my site not too long ago, I recall. I’m pretty sure I’ve done the same thing at least at one point or another.

These are good details to cover, so I’m glad you can be arsed to use your blog-space for it.

When you use the cite attribute properly, it fascilitates some useful functionality. On my site, for instance, I use a function that reads the attribute, and if it has a value, automatically appends a link to the source within’ the quote.

I want to publish the function for others, but I’ve yet to iron out the details with auto-linking <q /> elements. The same function handles both.

By: heretic

heretic — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 00:28:17 +0000

Hmm. I’d go for option two, but only since option three relies on the cite attribute which is for a URI rather than conversational text. As a result, the plain text paragraph wins out in my mind.

Plus… personally I am wary of quoting something and not being clear enough about what is a quote and what is my own content. Since I’m not sure the average user knows about semantics, I wouldn’t feel comfortable relying on an attribute to make the soure clear.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:54:20 +0000

I knew number three would be tempting — looks like it caught three people before being exposed . Number three does make more sense though, and since a physical publication (esp. one which is out of print) can’t be expected to have a URI, surely some leverage is needed.

Paul: thanks for the photomatt link — I missed that one first time ’round

Rob: The penguin was delicious!

By: Geoffrey Sneddon

Geoffrey Sneddon — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:13:12 +0000

I’d say 2, as the cite attribute is for URIs, and it also put’s it outside the table, which IMO it has no reason to be in…