正确使用< cite> [英] proper use of <cite>
问题描述
在我的引用一词中，我没有明确的定义。所以有没有它b / b
。例如，如果我建议纽约时报的新声明受到影响，那是一个引用吗？
我想它确实是，我应该转移到< cite>并且放弃
使用自定义CSS标签，例如标题等。类。然而，那也是b $ b提出了一个问题。引用的正确格式是什么？我已经看到它被强调了（芝加哥，我猜），斜体，或者保持原样。是否有首选的HTML格式，或者对
a全球标准有一些共识？
-
Haines Brown
br **** @ hartford-hwp.com
kb **** @ arrl.net
www .hartford-hwp.com
" Haines Brown" <峰; br **** @ teufel.hartford-hwp.com>在消息中写道
news：87 ************ @ teufel.hartford-hwp.com ...我没有在我的脑海中有一个明确的定义是引用，和
所以避免了它。例如，如果我建议纽约时报遭受b $ b b的声誉，这是一个引用吗？
我想它确实是，我应该转向< cite>并且放弃
使用自定义CSS标签，例如标题等。类。然而，
也提出了一个问题。引用的正确格式是什么？
我看到它下划线（芝加哥，我猜），斜体，或者说没有用。是否有一种首选的HTML格式，或者对全球标准的一些
共识？
这是我对它的看法，而不是说它''福音或其他什么。
使用< q>对于非常短的报价。 < p>我以为他说过
< q> trouser< / q>但他实际上说< q>浏览器< / q>。< / p>我看到的所有
浏览器都将其表达为引用。除了IE之外没什么。
使用< cite>对于一个块元素中的较长引号，或对于
应该用斜体表示的特殊名称（如杂志，船只，
等）。所有的浏览器我都看过italicize< cite>，甚至是IE。顺便说一下，我在学校教了一个b斜体，它是打字机上印刷版的
下划线，如果你可以做斜体，那就是
首选。此外，我不会在HTML中做太多的下划线，因为
使它看起来像一个链接。
使用< blockquote>当有一个完整的块元素或更多
引用时。浏览器会加深这方面的余量。
" Neal" <是ne ** @ spamrcn.com>在消息中写道
news：3f ********************** @ news.rcn.com ...
海恩斯布朗 <峰; br **** @ teufel.hartford-hwp.com>在消息中写道
新闻：87 ************ @ teufel.hartford-hwp.com ...我没有明确的定义在我的引文中，所以有避免它。例如，如果我建议
York Times遭受的声誉，那是一个引用吗？
[snip]
这是我对它的看法，而不是说这是福音或其他什么。
使用< q>对于非常短的报价。 < p>我以为他说
< q>裤子< / q>但他实际上说< q>浏览器< / q>。< / p>我见过的所有浏览器都将其表达为引用。除了IE之外没什么。
使用< cite>在一个块元素中使用更长的引号，或者用于斜体的特殊名称（如杂志，船只，
等）。
引文与引文不同。这是对报价或信息的
来源的识别。正如W3C所解释的那样，< cite>标签
包含引用或对其他来源的引用。它们给出的例子是：b $ b< CITE> Harry S. Truman< / CITE>说，
< Q lang =" en-us">降压停在这里。< / Q>
可以找到更多信息在< CITE> [ISO-0000]< / CITE> ;.
我个人认为没有任何意义。首先，当使用* * * b $ b浏览器时，它会以呈现文档的方式模拟打印（
是，您的花园种类图形浏览器），我不希望看到传统上要求的效果
。如果我在一本书或一个
的广告中读到，
正如哈里·S·杜鲁门所说的那样，降压在这里停止。
如果Harry S. Truman，我会感到震惊。斜体，因为它没有
的原因。
正如你所指出的，书籍和杂志的标题等*通常是* br />
斜体，但即使它们没有被引用它们也是如此（例如，我看到了
a副本<？> The Observer< /？ >躺在他的办公桌上），所以从某种意义上讲，使用< cite>并不是真的有意义。用它们标记。你
也可以使用< em>或者，如果你想给自己留下灵活性来改变标题出现超出斜体的方式，< span
class =" title">
Haines Brown< br **** @ teufel.hartford-hwp.com>写道：我想它确实是，我应该转向< cite>并放弃使用自定义CSS标签，例如标题等。类。但是，这也提出了一个问题。引用的正确格式是什么？我已经看到了它的下划线（芝加哥，我猜），斜体，或者说没有用。有没有首选的HTML格式，或者对全球标准有一些共识？
MLA风格：< p>< q>是的，我做到了< / q> < cite>（Smith 98）< / cite>。< / p>
APA风格：< p>< q>是的，我做到了< q> < cite>（Smith，2003，p.98）< / cite>。< / p>
芝加哥风格：< p>< q>是的，我做到了< / q>< cite>< sup>< a
href ="＃footnote"> 1< / a>< / sup>< / cite>。< / p> ;
因为< cite>是内联的，将它用于内联引号是有意义的。注意
报价文本在< q>范围内标签。
你不应该在< q>中包含引号。标签，但由于IE
并没有像它应该的那样插入它们，你可以自己添加它们和
然后禁用带样式表的自动引号。
-
Michael Wilcox
mjwilco at yahoo dot com
Web开发人员的基本工具 - http://mikewilcox.t35.com
I''ve not had a clear definition in my mind of "citation," and so have
avoided it. For example, if I suggest that the reputation of the New
York Times has suffered, is that a citation?
I suppose it really is and I should shift to <cite> and give up the
use oif a custom CSS tag such as a "title" class. However, that also
brings up a question. What is the proper format for a citation? I''ve
seen it underlined (Chicago, I guess), italicized, or left
unadorned. Is there a prefered format for HTML, or some consensus over
a global standard?
--
Haines Brown
br****@hartford-hwp.com
kb****@arrl.net
www.hartford-hwp.com
"Haines Brown" <br****@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote in message
news:87************@teufel.hartford-hwp.com...I''ve not had a clear definition in my mind of "citation," and so have avoided it. For example, if I suggest that the reputation of the New York Times has suffered, is that a citation?
I suppose it really is and I should shift to <cite> and give up the use oif a custom CSS tag such as a "title" class. However, that also brings up a question. What is the proper format for a citation? I''ve seen it underlined (Chicago, I guess), italicized, or left
unadorned. Is there a prefered format for HTML, or some consensus over a global standard?
Here''s my take on it, not saying it''s the gospel or anything.
Use <q> for very short quotes. <p>I thought he said
<q>trouser</q> but he actually said <q>browser</q>.</p> All
browsers I''ve seen express this as "quote" except IE which does
nothing.
Use <cite> for longer quotes within one block element, or for
special names which should be italicized (like magazines, ships,
etc.). All browsers I''ve seen italicize <cite>, even IE. BTW, I
was taught in school that italics are the print version of
underlining on a typewriter, and if you can do italics it''s
preferred. Also, I wouldn''t do much underlining in HTML as that
makes it look like a link.
Use <blockquote> when there is a complete block element or more
quoted. Browsers will deepen the margins for this.
"Neal" <ne**@spamrcn.com> wrote in message
news:3f**********************@news.rcn.com...
"Haines Brown" <br****@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote in message
news:87************@teufel.hartford-hwp.com...I''ve not had a clear definition in my mind of "citation," and so haveavoided it. For example, if I suggest that the reputation of
the NewYork Times has suffered, is that a citation?
[snip]
Here''s my take on it, not saying it''s the gospel or anything.
Use <q> for very short quotes. <p>I thought he said
<q>trouser</q> but he actually said <q>browser</q>.</p> All
browsers I''ve seen express this as "quote" except IE which does
nothing.
Use <cite> for longer quotes within one block element, or for
special names which should be italicized (like magazines, ships,
etc.).
Citation is not the same thing as quotation. It''s the identification of the
source of a quotation or of information. As the W3C explains, a <cite> tag
"contains a citation or a reference to other sources." The examples they
give are:
As <CITE>Harry S. Truman</CITE> said,
<Q lang="en-us">The buck stops here.</Q>
More information can be found in <CITE>[ISO-0000]</CITE>.
I personally don''t see any point to it. For one thing, when using the kind
of browser that *does* emulate print in the way it presents a document (that
is, your garden variety graphical browser), I don''t expect to see effects
that aren''t traditionally called for. If I read in a book or in an
advertisement,
As Harry S. Truman said, "The buck stops here."
I would be startled if "Harry S. Truman" were italicized, because there''s no
reason for it.
As you point out, book and magazine titles and the like *are* conventionally
italicized, but they are so even when they''re not being cited (as in, "I saw
a copy of <?>The Observer</?> lying on his desk"), so it doesn''t really
make sense, semantically speaking, to use the <cite> tag with them. You
might as well just use <em> or, if you want to leave yourself the
flexibility to change how titles appear beyond italicization, <span
class="title">
Haines Brown <br****@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote:I suppose it really is and I should shift to <cite> and give up the
use oif a custom CSS tag such as a "title" class. However, that also
brings up a question. What is the proper format for a citation? I''ve
seen it underlined (Chicago, I guess), italicized, or left
unadorned. Is there a prefered format for HTML, or some consensus over
a global standard?
MLA style: <p><q>Yes, I did it</q> <cite>(Smith 98)</cite>.</p>
APA style: <p><q>Yes, I did it<q> <cite>(Smith, 2003, p. 98)</cite>.</p>
Chicago style: <p><q>Yes, I did it</q><cite><sup><a
href="#footnote">1</a></sup></cite>.</p>
Since <cite> is inline, it makes sense to use it for inline quotes. Note
that the text of the quote is within the <q> tag.
You aren''t supposed to include the quote marks in the <q> tags, but since IE
doesn''t insert them like it''s supposed to, you can add them yourself and
then disable the automatic quotes with style sheets.
--
Michael Wilcox
mjwilco at yahoo dot com
Essential Tools for the Web Developer - http://mikewilcox.t35.com
这篇关于正确使用< cite>的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
