- Neil Pie committed e657710
from neilpie’s Activity https://github.com/neilpie/WordPress-CamelCase-Zealot/compare/f9d2491a7d…e65771091e
from neilpie’s Activity https://github.com/neilpie/WordPress-CamelCase-Zealot/compare/f9d2491a7d…e65771091e
from neilpie’s Activity https://github.com/neilpie/WordPress-CamelCase-Zealot/compare/dfb8294f00…f9d2491a7d
from neilpie’s Activity https://github.com/neilpie/WordPress-CamelCase-Zealot/compare/775efe13af…dfb8294f00
from neilpie’s Activity https://github.com/neilpie/WordPress-seo-information-columns
“Destructive Rampage”
Those are two words that every parent wants to hear when they pick their toddler up from nursery, aren’t they?
While his mother and I go over what should be done, we turn to our respective social networks for any form of opinion or support. Laura-Jane’s friends came back with well crafted and reasoned responses full of advice, experience, links and generally well intended words of encouragement. Mine, on the other hand, came back consistently with the same response…
“Good lad”
I couldn’t help but raise a smile.
For some reason last year I obviously had cause to purchase Istockphoto credits, because I received an email the other day informing me that I had a bunch of them left over and about to expire. Not wanting to take away from working photographers and give to Istock, I jumped in to look for an image to buy for no other purpose than to use up my 2 remaining credits.
An hour later of spiralling down the stock photo timesink, I got fed up and searched for ‘desperate’, ordered by reverse number of downloads and bought the last photo. For some reason this photo had never been downloaded before. Can’t think why.
Worth noting – it took EVERY bit of energy I have to not buy this photo that came up for ‘weird’, although now I somewhat regret that decision…
I often come across the situation when working on a client site where I need to mark up a soundbite. Usually a client testimonial or similar in some kind of business site. The problem I find is that these sorts of testimonial quotes all come complete with their own source references and I’ve struggled to find a nice way to mark up this associated data. Usually a name, sometimes a company, sometimes even a company URL are provided. At first glance one might think that the ‘cite’ attribute of our element is an appropriate method, as the spec is clear that the…
Content inside a
qelement must be quoted from another source, whose address, if it has one, may be cited in theciteattribute. The source may be fictional, as when quoting characters in a novel or screenplay.
Sounds great, but the spec continues that..
If the
citeattribute is present, it must be a valid URL potentially surrounded by spaces. To obtain the corresponding citation link, the value of the attribute must be resolved relative to the element. User agents should allow users to follow such citation links.
Quite clearly inappropriate, intended to reference the source document from which a quote has been lifted. It doesn’t really apply in our use case of recounting a spoken quote as a testimonial or similar. Especially when the only attribution that we might have is the name of a person. HTML4 gave us the perfect solution in the element, providing the following code example…
As <cite>Harry S. Truman</cite> said, <q lang="en-us">The buck stops here.</q>
Unfortunately the current HTML5 Working draft lays a big log in our custard by specifically stating that…
The
citeelement represents the title of a work (e.g. a book, a paper, an essay, a poem, a score, a song, a script, a film, a TV show, a game, a sculpture, a painting, a theatre production, a play, an opera, a musical, an exhibition, a legal case report, etc). This can be a work that is being quoted or referenced in detail (i.e. a citation), or it can just be a work that is mentioned in passing.A person’s name is not the title of a work — even if people call that person a piece of work — and the element must therefore not be used to mark up people’s names.
The best option it can offer us is the <b> tag or a <span> element, but isn’t really clear as to the best practice – almost hinting that these sorts of attributions shouldn’t be used at all.
Looking back at one of my recent projects, I can see that I chose to use the following markup, which on reflection may also not have been the best solution but provides a level of semantics otherwise not provided
<q> They helped me find a great way of marking up testimonial quotes <span class="author">A.N. Other</span> </q>
When reading the HTML5 recommendation for the element we find the following paragraph…
Small print typically features disclaimers, caveats, legal restrictions, or copyrights. Small print is also sometimes used for attribution, or for satisfying licensing requirements.
…which seems to have slipped under the radar up until now. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but the clause Small print is also sometimes used for attribution
implies that the best way to mark up the above would be as follows:
<q> They helped me find a great way of marking up testimonial quotes <small class="author">A.N. Other</small> </q>
It works for me, but can’t help thinking that I’ve missed something or am making a bit of a leap. Otherwise why wouldn’t the W3C list the element among those that could be used for this purpose?
Maybe I need to think this out a bit more, although what’s more likely is that I should maybe think about it a bit less…