Click here to get back home

Using asterisks
 Home | NewsGroups | Search | About
Login Password
Register Now!
 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content
Subject Author Date
Using asterisks D.M. Procida 01-22-2008
---> Re: Using asterisks Harlan Messinge...01-22-2008
| ---> Re: Using asterisks Jukka K. Korpel...01-23-2008
| | ---> Re: Using asterisks Harlan Messinge...01-23-2008
| | | |--> Re: Using asterisks Harlan Messinge...01-23-2008
| | `--> Re: Using asterisks Jukka K. Korpel...01-23-2008
| ---> Re: Using asterisks Harlan Messinge...01-23-2008
| ---> Re: Using asterisks Jukka K. Korpel...01-23-2008
| `--> Re: Using asterisks Harlan Messinge...01-23-2008
---> Re: Using asterisks Jukka K. Korpel...01-22-2008
Posted by D.M. Procida on January 22, 2008, 7:40 am
Please log in for more thread options
 In music (apparently) when listing a composer's compositions, a single
asterisk against a performance item denotes that it is a premiere (i.e.
in that country), and two asterisks that it is a world premiere.

See for example "Selected Compositions" at:

<http://www.cf.ac.uk/music/people/JW.html>

I haven't been able to discover so far whether this is a genuine
convention, understood universally (I certainly hadn't come across it
before).

If it is, how would one best mark up such information?

Daniele

Posted by Harlan Messinger on January 22, 2008, 8:38 am
Please log in for more thread options
 D.M. Procida wrote:
> In music (apparently) when listing a composer's compositions, a single
> asterisk against a performance item denotes that it is a premiere (i.e.
> in that country), and two asterisks that it is a world premiere.
>
> See for example "Selected Compositions" at:
>
> <http://www.cf.ac.uk/music/people/JW.html>
>
> I haven't been able to discover so far whether this is a genuine
> convention, understood universally (I certainly hadn't come across it
> before).
>
> If it is, how would one best mark up such information?

I would insert a note in front of the table reading:

(* indicates a national premiere. ** indicates a world premiere.)

You could also put a span around each asterisk or pair of asterisks with
the title attribute set to describe the symbol(s) but I don't know how
much that would really buy you.

Posted by Steve Swift on January 22, 2008, 8:52 am
Please log in for more thread options
Harlan Messinger wrote:
> You could also put a span around each asterisk or pair of asterisks with
> the title attribute set to describe the symbol(s) but I don't know how
> much that would really buy you.

There there is the little known ABBR tag. "*" and "**" are hardly
abbreviations but the tag sort of works, apart from the dotted underline
that compliant browsers use.

<ABBR TITLE="Premi&eacute;re">*</ABBR> or hover over the "IBM" at
http://swiftys.org.uk/test.html

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk

Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on January 22, 2008, 10:10 am
Please log in for more thread options
Scripsit Steve Swift:

> There there is the little known ABBR tag.

It's not as little known as it should be.

> "*" and "**" are hardly abbreviations

They surely aren't.

> but the tag sort of works,

Let me guess... you also indent with <blockquote> and make text small
with <h6>, right? And italics with <address>, perchance?

> apart from the dotted
> underline that compliant browsers use.

YM "foolish".

> <ABBR TITLE="Premi&eacute;re">*</ABBR> or hover over the "IBM" at
> http://swiftys.org.uk/test.html

You don't need ABBR nonsense for the hover tooltip. SPAN works just as
fine and is semantically empty, contrary to being semantic
disinformation. The only problem is that it helps virtually nobody to
have important information hidden in a tooltip that may or may not
appear and usually doesn't.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/


Posted by Andy Dingley on January 22, 2008, 12:19 pm
Please log in for more thread options

> > "*" and "**" are hardly abbreviations
>
> They surely aren't.

Of course they're an abbreviation. Why should abbreviation be
necessarily limited to a literal subset of the characters from the
defining term? They're also context-sensitive to the domain of musical
performances, but then most abbreviations have similar restrictions.


> You don't need ABBR nonsense for the hover tooltip. SPAN works just as
> fine and is semantically empty, contrary to being semantic
> disinformation.

Firstly I'd agree that we should separate our thinking about
appropriate markup, and rendering gimmicks that may or may not happen
on viewing.

If you want hoverboxes, title on almost anything does the trick.

However I don't see <abbr> as "nonsense", nor as semantically empty.

Is semantic emptiness a good thing? - Only if we are comparing it to
semantic disinformation (using <address> would obviously be wrong).

Is <abbr> semantically wrong? Is <abbr> semantically empty? Is <abbr>
semantically appropriate? By "semantics", do we mean those that are
evident to humans with typical browsers (who may or may not see
tooltips, but who may also be familiar with concert listings)? Or do
we mean SemWeb Berners-Lee 'bots searching out the automatically
discoverable, with cloth ears and no background contextual knowledge?

Now by your comparison with <span>, you appear to count <abbr> as
meaningful (either good or bad). I would agree.

Is it bad? I don't believe so - I consider "*" to be an obscurely-
formed and specialist-audience abbreviation, but none the less so for
that.

So if <abbr> _is_ meaningful, and this meaning isn't wrong (even if
minimal), then what's the problem with it?


How can semantics be communicated? There are many ways:

* That implicit in the well-known(sic) HTML specification. Where
<address> is clearly described as denoting authorship or ownership
(property domain), rather than a location (type domain). Where also
<abbr> has a definite, if unclear definition too.

* By reference to RDFS, OWL etc. Potentially useful for future 'bots,
useless for humans directly, of limited use to today's 'bots.

* By assumed human knowledge. Great for humans of a limited audience,
poor for other humans, useless for 'bots.

* By explicitly stated human-readable text content. Wrap each one up
in a <a> link if you wish and provide a footnote. It solves the
problem for humans, even if it does smell of longdesc.


> The only problem is that it helps virtually nobody to
> have important information hidden in a tooltip that may or may not
> appear and usually doesn't.

That much is of course true. Is it "important" though? (i.e. does the
target audience already recognise the meaning from their outside
experience?) Is it "hidden" though? title isn't unreasoable as
annotation for smarter 'bots and for humans with smarter agents.


Overall, I'd go with <abbr title="Premiere performance" > and an
unlinked explanatory footnote to explain it.


Our other projects:

Art Dolls, Fairies and Mermaids - Sunnyfaces.net

Roy's Linux, Programming and Search Engines messages

1-Script XML SitemapXML Sitemap