{"rowid": 169, "title": "Incite A Riot", "contents": "Given its relatively limited scope, HTML can be remarkably expressive. With a bit of lateral thinking, we can mark up content such as tag clouds and progress meters, even when we don\u2019t have explicit HTML elements for those patterns.\n\nSuppose we want to mark up a short conversation:\n\n \n Alice: I think Eve is watching. \n\n Bob: This isn\u2019t a cryptography tutorial \u2026we\u2019re in the wrong example!\n \n\n\nA note in the the HTML 4.01 spec says it\u2019s okay to use a definition list:\n\n\n\tAnother application of DL, for example, is for marking up dialogues, with each DT naming a speaker, and each DD containing his or her words.\n\n\nThat would give us:\n\n\n\t- Alice
: - I think Eve is watching.
\n\t- Bob
: - This isn't a cryptography tutorial ...we're in the wrong example!
\n
\n\nThis usage of a definition list is proof that writing W3C specifications and smoking crack are not mutually exclusive activities. \u201cI think Eve is watching\u201d is not a definition of \u201cAlice.\u201d If you (ab)use a definition list in this way, Norm will hunt you down.\n\nThe conversation problem was revisited in HTML5. What if dt and dd didn\u2019t always mean \u201cdefinition title\u201d and \u201cdefinition description\u201d? A new element was forged: dialog. Now the the \u201cd\u201d in dt and dd doesn\u2019t stand for \u201cdefinition\u201d, it stands for \u201cdialog\u201d (or \u201cdialogue\u201d if you can spell):\n\n\n\nProblem solved \u2026except that dialog is no longer in the HTML5 spec. Hixie further expanded the meaning of dt and dd so that they could be used inside details (which makes sense\u2014it starts with a \u201cd\u201d) and figure (\u2026um). At the same time as the content model of details and figure were being updated, the completely-unrelated dialog element was dropped.\n\nBack to the drawing board, or in this case, the HTML 4.01 specification. The spec defines the cite element thusly:\n\n\n\tContains a citation or a reference to other sources.\n\n\nPerfect! There\u2019s even an example showing how this can applied when attributing quotes to people:\n\nAs Harry S. Truman said,\nThe buck stops here.
\n\nFor longer quotes, the blockquote element might be more appropriate. In a conversation, where the order matters, I think an ordered list would make a good containing element for this pattern:\n\n\n\t- Alice:
I think Eve is watching.
\n\t- Bob:
This isn't a cryptography tutorial ...we're in the wrong example!
\n
\n\nProblem solved \u2026except that the cite element has been redefined in the HTML5 spec:\n\n\n\tThe cite element represents the title of a work \u2026 A person\u2019s name is not the title of a work \u2026 and the element must therefore not be used to mark up people\u2019s names.\n\n\nHTML5 is supposed to be backwards compatible with previous versions of HTML, yet here we have a semantic pattern already defined in HTML 4.01 that is now non-conforming in HTML5. The entire justification for the change boils down to this line of reasoning:\n\n\n\tGiven that: titles of works are often italicised and\n\tgiven that: people\u2019s names are not often italicised and\n\tgiven that: most browsers italicise the contents of the cite element,\n\ttherefore: the cite element should not be used to mark up people\u2019s names.\n\n\nIn other words, the default browser styling is now dictating semantic meaning. The tail is wagging the dog.\n\nNot to worry, the HTML5 spec tells us how we can mark up names in conversations without using the cite element:\n\n\n\tIn some cases, the b element might be appropriate for names\n\n\nI believe the colloquial response to this is a combination of the letters W, T and F, followed by a question mark.\n\nThe non-normative note continues:\n\n\n\tIn other cases, if an element is really needed, the span element can be used.\n\n\nThis is not a joke. We are seriously being told to use semantically meaningless elements to mark up content that is semantically meaningful.\n\nWe don\u2019t have to take it.\n\nFirstly, any conformance checker\u2014that\u2019s the new politically correct term for \u201cvalidator\u201d\u2014cannot possibly check every instance of the cite element to see if it\u2019s really the title of a work and not the name of a person. So we can disobey the specification without fear of invalidating our documents.\n\nSecondly, Hixie has repeatedly stated that browser makers have a powerful voice in deciding what goes into the HTML5 spec; if a browser maker refuses to implement a feature, then that feature should come out of the spec because otherwise, the spec is fiction. Well, one of the design principles of HTML5 is the Priority of Constituencies:\n\n\n\tIn case of conflict, consider users over authors over implementors over specifiers over theoretical purity.\n\n\nThat places us\u2014authors\u2014above browser makers. If we resolutely refuse to implement part of the HTML5 spec, then the spec becomes fiction.\n\nJoin me in a campaign of civil disobedience against the unnecessarily restrictive, backwards-incompatible change to the cite element. Start using HTML5 but start using it sensibly. Let\u2019s ensure that bad advice remains fictitious.\n\nTantek has set up a page on the WHATWG wiki to document usage of the cite element for conversations. Please contribute to it.", "year": "2009", "author": "Jeremy Keith", "author_slug": "jeremykeith", "published": "2009-12-11T00:00:00+00:00", "url": "https://24ways.org/2009/incite-a-riot/", "topic": "code"}