Getting quote marks around <q> tags in IE

Hi,

I've been developing in Firebird, so I didn't notice this until today.
When I use the <q> tag, IE 6 doesn't put quotes around the quotation. I
tried specifically doing it in a stylesheet:

q:before { content: open-quote; }
q:after { content: close-quote; }

but it didn't work.

Is there any workaround for this (preferably not using Javascript, but I
will if I have to)?

TIA
--
Wayfarer
Journeys: http://wayfarer.brinkster.net/contact.asp

Wayfarer <mywebsite (AT) bottom (DOT) com> wrote:

When I use the <q> tag, IE 6 doesn't put quotes around the
quotation.

IE does not support the <q> element. (It recognizes it but does not
implement it according to HTML specifications.)

I tried specifically doing it in a stylesheet:

q:before { content: open-quote; }
q:after { content: close-quote; }

but it didn't work.

IE does not support :before and :after pseudo-elements or generated
content.

Is there any workaround for this (preferably not using Javascript,
but I will if I have to)?

Forget the <q> element (which is getting removed from HTML anyway, and
never was supported in a useful way), and use quotation marks as actual
textual content. Either use Ascii quotation marks, if you wish to play
simple and safe, or use language-dependent correct quotation marks,
such as “ and ” for US English.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Forget the <q> element (which is getting removed from HTML anyway,

Please explain why it's going to be removed. I always thought the
combination of <q> and <cite> had potential (well, in theory).

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> exclaimed in <Xns941069262365Fjkorpelacstutfi (AT) 193 (DOT) 229.0.31>:

Forget the <q> element (which is getting removed from HTML anyway, and
never was supported in a useful way), and use quotation marks as actual

That is odd. I don't think I am alone in believing that there will be no
more versions of HTML.

Unless someone figures out that they want a HTML 4.02 or similar, Q won't
go away from HTML.

It won't go away from XHTML either, unless the current draft of XHTML 2.0
is accepted.

In that case "Q" will be replaced by "QUOTE" - yet another in a long list
of "why-oh-why"s related to XHTML 2. Save for the name and the
not-often-implemented addition of one-would-hope
might-be-commonly-used-national quotation marks, QUOTE and Q seem oddly
similar. Why they intend to change the name of the bloody thing I'll never
know.


... but atleast that means the Swedish translation of the WAI will suddenly
become correct in referring to the 'QUOTE element'. What a doubly sordid
story it all is.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina (AT) greytower (DOT) net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905

tina (AT) greytower (DOT) net (Tina Holmboe) wrote:

That is odd. I don't think I am alone in believing that there
will be no more versions of HTML.

There will. They will just be called XHML something. XHTML is just
a syntactic transmogrification of HTML.

It won't go away from XHTML either, unless the current draft of
XHTML 2.0 is accepted.

That's a bid odd formulation, since the XHTML 2.0 draft is the best
quasi-official info about the future of HTML.

QUOTE and Q seem oddly similar.

Yet they are quite different.

Why they intend to change the name of the bloody
thing I'll never know.

You will. It's simply because Q is a dead end. It's broken by design.
If you use Q, then your quotations are rendered as normal textual
content on browsers that don't support Q (such as IE). The QUOTE
element is of questionable practical usefulness - it was invented too
late - but at least you can use it without breaking your pages.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> exclaimed in <Xns9410D5D298DD7jkorpelacstutfi (AT) 193 (DOT) 229.0.31>:

tina (AT) greytower (DOT) net (Tina Holmboe) wrote:

That is odd. I don't think I am alone in believing that there
will be no more versions of HTML.

There will. They will just be called XHML something. XHTML is just
a syntactic transmogrification of HTML.

So HTML - an application of SGML - and XHTML - an application of XML - are
simply the same thing. But with different, and not related, version
numbering.

Yes ?

Why they intend to change the name of the bloody
thing I'll never know.

You will. It's simply because Q is a dead end. It's broken by design.
If you use Q, then your quotations are rendered as normal textual
content on browsers that don't support Q (such as IE). The QUOTE
element is of questionable practical usefulness - it was invented too

So ...

<q>This is a quotation</q>

will be rendered, in a UA that does not support Q, as

This is a quotation

whereas

<quote>This is a quotation</quote>

will be rendered, in a UA that does not support QUOTE, as ... what ?

late - but at least you can use it without breaking your pages.

XHTML 2.0 is doing a grand job of that, yes. Grand job.


--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina (AT) greytower (DOT) net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905

Tina Holmboe wrote:

So ...

q>This is a quotation</q

will be rendered, in a UA that does not support Q, as

This is a quotation

whereas

quote>This is a quotation</quote

will be rendered, in a UA that does not support QUOTE, as ... what ?

Exactly the same as in a UA that does support quote. "Visual user agents must
not by default add delimiting quotation marks (as was the case for the q element
in earlier versions of XHTML). It is the responsibility of the document author
to add any required quotation marks, either directly in the text, or via a
stylesheet."[1]

---
[1] 9.8. The quote element, "XHTMLT 2.0", W3C Working Draft, 6 May 2003,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-inline-text.html#sec_9.8.>

--
Steve

There is nothing more uncommon than common sense -Frank Lloyd Wright

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Tina Holmboe wrote:

whereas

quote>This is a quotation</quote

will be rendered, in a UA that does not support QUOTE, as ... what ?

You'd look a bit more clueful if you had read this first:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-inli...t.html#sec_9.8.

It introduces a subtle new anomaly, but at least it gives a better
impression in respect of fallback behaviour.

The anomaly is that in their exhibit, the quotation marks are placed
inside the <quote> element - but the quotation marks are not,
logically, a part of the quoted text. Thus, IMNSHO the quotation
marks should be placed outside of the <quote> tags, not inside them
(and should use the quotation conventions of the enclosing language,
NOT the conventions of the language being quoted).

"Steve Fulton" <cerberus40 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> exclaimed in <7SShb.8257$Ys.661446 (AT) news20 (DOT) bellglobal.com>:

q>This is a quotation</q

will be rendered, in a UA that does not support Q, as

This is a quotation

whereas

quote>This is a quotation</quote

will be rendered, in a UA that does not support QUOTE, as ... what ?

Exactly the same as in a UA that does support quote. "Visual user agents must
not by default add delimiting quotation marks (as was the case for the q
element

This is the "quite different" bit, then. The rendering of quotation
marks. Shall I assume that said rendering was the "broken by design" bit ?

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina (AT) greytower (DOT) net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell (AT) ph (DOT) gla.ac.uk> exclaimed in <Pine.LNX.4.53.0310111352150.10264 (AT) ppepc56 (DOT) ph.gla.ac.uk>:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Tina Holmboe wrote:

whereas

quote>This is a quotation</quote

will be rendered, in a UA that does not support QUOTE, as ... what ?

You'd look a bit more clueful if you had read this first:

Assuming I write to look clueful, yes.

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-inli...t.html#sec_9.8.

You'd look a bit less arrogant if you did not assume that I had not
read that URI. Why are you doing this ? Is there a competition going
on with the explicit purpose of pissing off even those who actually
DO know what WWW is for ?


The Q element, today, has not been implemented in the way it was
envisioned. I do not care in the least what anyone - anyone at all - thinks
of whether that original idea was good or not. Water under the bridge.

Simply put: few browsers render the Q element with the quotation marks
assumed to be used by the language in question. Some UAs, however,
*understand* the Q element in that they are able to present the fact
that it is a quotation to readers.

What XHTML 2.0 suggests is to replace Q with QUOTE. Fine. That has two
effects:

- When rendering, the QUOTE should NOT be rendered with enclosing
quotation marks. With the support for Q as it is, that is in effect
the same that happens with Q, correct or not.


- A UA that understands Q but doesn't render it "properly" might still
be able to supply users information regarding the quotations; when
people start writing QUOTE instead, a whole lot of very nifty legacy
tools that look at the semantics of HTML documents will be broken.

Keeping the NAME - Q - and changing the definition was obviously too much
of a stretch.

HTML, no matter what ideals one have, IS the most commonly used markup
language on the WWW. Updating it is a good idea; updating it so that it
remains atleast SOMEWHAT backwards compatible is better.

Breaking it for the sake of who-knows-what is a bloody awful idea; even if
saying so is politically-incorrect-and-very-mean-to-poor-xhtml-2.0.

The anomaly is that in their exhibit, the quotation marks are placed
inside the <quote> element - but the quotation marks are not,
logically, a part of the quoted text. Thus, IMNSHO the quotation
marks should be placed outside of the <quote> tags, not inside them

I am quite sure that the keepers of the draft would be happy to correct
this oversight. Did you tell them ?

Followups set out of ciwas. This isn't a rendering problem.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina (AT) greytower (DOT) net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905