#384 contradiction on whether <q> requires quotation marks

[Kevin Hawkins]

The definition of the element <q> contains the phrase "(separated from the surrounding text with quotation marks)". However, in section 3.3.3 (#COHQQ) it says, in reference to the various elements for quotation:

Quotation may be indicated in a printed source by changes in type face, by special punctuation marks (single or double or angled quotes, dashes, etc.) and by layout (indented paragraphs, etc.), or it may not be explicitly represented at all. If these characteristics are of interest, one or other of the global rend or rendition attributes discussed in section 1.3.1.1 Global Attributes may be used to record them.

So I think we should remove the above parenthetical phrase from the definition <q>.

[Lou Burnard]

Or leave it in with the qualification "for example". But I tend to agree that this definition is over verbose anyway.

[Kevin Hawkins]

Are you suggesting changing

"(separated from the surrounding text with quotation marks)"

to

"(separated from the surrounding text with, for example, quotation marks)"

? I suppose that would be okay. If read with the rest of the definition (after the parenthetical phrase), it becomes clearer how <q> is different from <hi>.

[Lou Burnard]

yes

[Lou Burnard]

Now I look, the phrase you're referring to actually appears in the <gloss> for the element name, where it serves to explain the element name rather than define its use. So I have (a) changed the gloss to "quoted" (b) changed the <desc> to
" contains material which is distinguished from the surrounding text using quotation marks or a similar method, for any one of a variety of reasons including, but not limited to: direct speech or thought, technical terms or jargon, authorial distance, quotations from elsewhere, and passages that are mentioned but not used."

I also changed the remarks to contain

" <p>May be used to indicate that a passage is distinguished from the surrounding text for reasons concerning which no claim is made. When used in this manner, <gi>q</gi> may be thought of as syntactic sugar for <gi>hi</gi> with a value of <att>rend</att> that indicates the use of such mechanisms as quotation marks.</p>"

I claim that this is now all consistent, and also consistent with what it says in the chapter itself

implemented at 10184