Rats. HTML ruinage. Sorry.
Rats. HTML ruinage. Sorry.
You may want to aquaint yourself with the encoder.
the dictator might include a link as a pop-up (oh i said the bad word) near the reply box ;)
If you end up encoding your italics for the sake of validity, you might want to use instead for the same reason. The <i> tag is deprecated in favor of (which is short for emphasis).
This does the job.
It's in wp-layout.css
Thanks for fixing my bustage.
Bad news is: I don't want to encode. I want the I tag or EM tag and any other tag to always be stripped from the TITLE attributes just as it is stripped from TITLE tags.
I want to make only parts of titles in italics when displayed in layout.
For example, in the following title:
Review of <i>Lord of the Rings</i>
I want "Review of" to be normal and "Lord of the Rings" to be italicized.
The good news: I fixed some other validation problems on my front page and now the page is validating. Still, I don't want to pass I or EM tags in the middle of titles of things to RSS feeds or the like. It doesn't sound right.
I love that encoder widget!
Thanks for your help!
Oh, and as a side note, I believe using <cite> is the preferred way here, not .
Visually it applies italics to text so it looks the exact same as <i> and , but semantically it infers referencing.
awh - the encoding referred to the posting of the code... not your italics problem.
Stevarino - why cite? It's already marked as h3, which is what it is, a headline.
I do agree that it should be em and not i however.
The cite tag is used for citations or references
Cite: Contains a citation or a reference to other sources.
I've marked up that blockquote with cite="W3C" (although I could have also put the URI to the page where that quote exists).
The title of a movie, Lord of the Rings for example, shouldn't be marked up using cite unless you're citing the movie. For example:
The very lovely uber blockquotes hack puts the cite and title attributes under blockquotes, but that's off topic. The bottom line, if I'm understanding the W3C specs correctly, is that em should be used in this particular situation (providing emphasis to the title.)
But we're not emphasizing, we're citing. And cite is not just an attribute, it's also an inline markup tag.
From the w3c source: "Contains a citation or a reference to other sources."
You are referencing the Lord of the Rings, are you not? In the w3c's example they use <cite> twice, once with a quote and again with a reference. The only reason why we use is because we want italics, which is a visible cue left over from print.
Well, I guess we're debating semantics. To me, simply emphasizing a title isn't citing it. A citation is:
So, if we were citing something from Lord of the Rings, then cite would make sense. Instead, we're simply displaying the title of the movie (or book, or whatever.) We're not actually referencing Lord of the Rings by naming it in the title, at least that's not how I interpret it. Now, within the review of Lord of the Rings, if anything is cited or referenced, then that should be marked up using cite.
I can see where it might be possible to argue the use of reference here, but I think it's a stretch. In the W3C example, they preface the cite (reference) in their second example with "More information can be found in..." I suppose you could argue that "Review of..." is a similar preface, but I wonder then where it would end? Should we cite every post title? Every comment? Every heading?
Arguments can be made for both, but I'm personally going to reserve the use of cite to when I'm explicitly quoting or referencing another work, not merely mentioning or naming that work.
But that's just me ;-)
So we should agree to disagree? Probably a good idea. :)
But I was under the impression that referencing and mentioning were synonyms. ;)
If I say that I read The Lord of the Rings the other day. That's simply a mentioning.
But, if I were to say: In The Lord of the Rings Gandalf mentions that ..... .blah, blah, blah.....
Then it becomes a citation. Which, IMHO, is where I would use a blockquote tag and employ the use of the uberblockquotes to properly cite and link the source.
If it's the title of a post, I don't see why it would need to be cited.
Well can I ask what logic justifies using ? To me using in this manner is no better than using <i> because we are not emphasizing. We are simply italicizing like your good little MLA handbooks said we should back in Composition 101 (or whatever).
If I said I had just finished reading Cat's Cradle*, I just referenced that book. It doesn't matter if I quote it or not, the book has been referenced. Now I wouldn't emphasize the title, that doesn't make sense in this case (say it out loud, it just sounds silly). So I look in the w3c spec and see that <cite> is used to reference.
I respect the w3c's standards, and see using just as offensive to semantic markup as <i> in this case. And sorry for ranting so much for this. This reply isn't in response to anyone's comment in particular; just the first time I've had caffeine in me today. :)
* Awesome book, but was used merely because this discussion board does not support <cite>.
from Merriam-Webster's website:
1 : to call upon officially or authoritatively to appear (as before a court)
2 : to quote by way of example, authority, or proof
3 a : to refer to; especially : to mention formally in commendation or praise b : to name in a citation
4 : to bring forward or call to another's attention especially as an example, proof, or precedent
Definition 3a would seem to indicate that simply mentioning the title would infact be a citation of sorts.
I conceed that Stevarino has a point. Proper use would be to use the cite tag. Do all cites get italics? or only in the case where it is the title of a book. Example: above I mentioned that this came from the Merriam-Webster site... as such, it is a citation, and should be in cite tags, but should it be italics, or normal? If it was a book, I'd say italics, hands down... but in this case......
If all cites are to be italics, then it's simply a CSS matter.... other wise....
Must investigate further.....
There is a point of view which says that regardless of semantics that italics are difficult to read from the typographical point of view and might best be avoided where poss. As this is a rambling pedantic thread I just thought I'd chip in my two pennworth ;)
Um... OK assuming I know the appropriate usage of STRONG, EM and CITE - how do I use them in post titles without munging the page validation?
Just edit the post class in the css with the appropriate style of your choice.
Nevermind, I just took out the title attribute :-)
What a great read! Very little to do with the original request for help, but interesting anyway. Just so you nonEnglish majors out there know, from the original post you would not cite the movie. Techgnome, cite comes from the Latin citare which means to excite, urge on, or call forward (as with a traffic ticket, aka citation) or point to as an authority or example. "The award goes to" would require a citation or if the review said, "There are many good fantasy movies, case in point, Lord of the Rings" - that is the meaning of 3a. A citation in a review would only be used when the ideas and opinions are not the author's own.
This topic has been closed to new replies.