< Q>和IE [英] <q> and IE

问题描述

您好，

我一直在使用< q>而不是& quot;最近报价。

幸运的是，由于IE似乎不知道

与< q>！ IE忽略它而不是渲染引号。

这是真的吗？


-

jmm（连字符）列表（at） sohnen-moe（dot）com

（删除.AXSPAMGN电子邮件）

Hello,
I have been using <q> instead of &quot; for quoting recently.
Fortunately not much has been changed since it seems IE does not know what
to do with <q>! IE ignores it rather than rendering quotes.
Is this true?

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

推荐答案

Jim Moe写道：

Jim Moe wrote:

似乎IE不知道如何处理< q>！ IE忽略它而不是渲染引号。
这是真的吗？

it seems IE does not know what to do with <q>! IE ignores it rather than
rendering quotes.
Is this true?

是的。 IE不支持q元素。


-

David Dorward< http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> < http://dorward.me.uk/>

首页是〜/ .bashrc的位置

Yes. IE doesn''t support the q element.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

11月16日星期三2005年14:55:54 -0700来自Jim Moe< jmm-
li *** ********@sohnen-moe.com >：

Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:55:54 -0700 from Jim Moe <jmm-
li***********@sohnen-moe.com>:

我一直在使用< q>而不是& quot;最近引用。
幸运的是，由于IE似乎不知道
与< q>！ IE忽略它而不是渲染引号。
这是真的吗？

I have been using <q> instead of &quot; for quoting recently.
Fortunately not much has been changed since it seems IE does not know what
to do with <q>! IE ignores it rather than rendering quotes.
Is this true?

嗯，无论如何，这是你的体验。 :-)


但是< q>和& quot;不是一回事。


& quot;与 - 它告诉浏览器

在那里放一个字符是完全相同的。（因此，几乎没有任何理由使用

它。）


< q> ...< / q>是如何标记引用的文本部分 - 在

理论中。在实践中，浏览器不同意如何处理< q> ...

< / q>（部分是因为

< http：/ /www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-Q> is wishy-

washy，所以我真的不认为< q>值得使用。


嗯...我想< q>和& quot是相似的，因为一个是没有用的b / b $另外几乎没用。:-)

-

Stan Brown，Oak Road Systems，美国纽约汤普金斯县
http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01规范： http：//www.w3。 org / TR / html401 /

验证人： http：/ /validator.w3.org/

CSS 2.1规范： http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/

验证者： http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

为什么我们不能帮助你：
http：//diveintomark.org/archives/200 ... _wont_help_you

Well, it''s your experience anyway. :-)

But <q> and &quot; aren''t the same thing.

&quot; is exactly the same thing as " -- it tells the browser to
put a " character there. (As such, there''s hardly any reason to use
it.)

<q> ... </q> is how you can mark a quoted section of text -- in
theory. In practice, browsers don''t agree on what to do with <q> ...
</q> (partly because
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-Q> is wishy-
washy, so I really don''t think <q> is worth using.

Hmm ... I guess <q> and &quot; are alike after all, since one is
useless and the other is nearly useless. :-)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won''t Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

2005年11月16日星期三，Stan Brown写道：

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Stan Brown wrote:

但< q>和& quot;不是一回事。


对，和< q>是一个不幸的设计，虽然我不能说

我本可以更好地设计它并实现他们想要的东西

。也许他们不应该这样做......

< q> ......< / q>是如何标记引用的文本部分 - 在
理论中。在实践中，浏览器不同意如何处理< q> ......
< / q>


哦，我认为*网页浏览器*非常了解该怎么做。

至少在简单的情况下[1]。

（部分是因为
< http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-Q> is wishy-
washy，


见 http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h-9.2.2.1

视觉用户代理必须确保内容Q元素是

用分隔引号呈现。


注意那里的必须。除了
you_know_who。

所以我真的不认为< q>值得使用。


显然它很好众所周知，这是另一部HTML4，其中包括实施。但我必须承认，我已经假设他们将b / b
视为忽视它而忽略了它< abbr> ; ...


....但是，请看看这个测试，将IE与网络浏览器进行比较
你选择的
： http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/tests/q .html


IE不会将任何样式应用于< abbr>元素，也不是它b / b
当一个人在它上面盘旋时，它会突然出现，这似乎表明他们不屑于承认abbr的存在。


但是对于q而言这不一样。它们不仅应用了我指定的样式，而且还在悬停时弹出标题。什么，他们

*不要做，是默认显示任何报价。


如果IE尊重其中任何一个，那可能不会那么糟糕

尝试，使用引号和引号或者：之前和：之后

来自CSS2.1第12.3和12.2节的结构;但它确实没有。


Mozilla和Opera（我试过的网络浏览器）愉快地产生了我希望的结果

，尽管我是不完全确定为什么（怀疑论者

预计至少会获得两组

尝试的报价，不是吗？）。

嗯......我想< q>和& quot;毕竟是相同的，因为一个是无用的，另一个几乎是无用的。 ： - ）

But <q> and &quot; aren''t the same thing.
Right, and <q> was an unfortunate design, although I can''t say
I could have designed it better and achieved what they wanted
to do. Maybe they shouldn''t have wanted to do that anyway...
<q> ... </q> is how you can mark a quoted section of text -- in
theory. In practice, browsers don''t agree on what to do with <q> ...
</q>
Oh, I think *web browsers* understand well enough what to do.
At least in the simple cases[1].
(partly because
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-Q> is wishy-
washy,
See http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h-9.2.2.1

Visual user agents must ensure that the content of the Q element is
rendered with delimiting quotation marks.

Note the "must" in there. That''s clear enough to everyone except
you_know_who.
so I really don''t think <q> is worth using.
Obviously it''s well known that this was another piece of HTML4 which
MSIE disdained to implement. But I must admit I had assumed they
disregarded it in the same way that they disregarded <abbr> ...

....however, take a look at this test, comparing IE with a web browser
of your choice: http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/tests/q.html

IE does not apply any styles to the <abbr> element, nor does it
pop the title up when one hovers over it, which seems to demonstrate
that they disdain to recognise abbr''s existence at all.

But for the "q" it''s different. They not only apply the styles which
I specified, but also pop-up the title when hovered. What they
*don''t* do, is to display any quotes by default.

That might not be so bad if IE honoured either of the following
attempts, using either the "quotes" or the ":before" and ":after"
constructs from CSS2.1 sections 12.3 and 12.2; but it does neither.

Mozilla and Opera (the web browsers which I tried) happily produce the
result I was hoping for, though I''m not entirely sure why (the sceptic
would anticipate getting two sets of quotes for at least one of those
attempts, no?).
Hmm ... I guess <q> and &quot; are alike after all, since one is
useless and the other is nearly useless. :-)

我想是这样的： - }


好​​吧，你可以用MSIE *打造*你的报价，如：我现在向自己证明了;

我似乎无法生成任何引号。

默认也不用一些CSS。当然，一个*应该*将CSS视为

纯粹是可选的...


欢呼（E& OE，当然）。


[1]用不同语言的嵌套

引号，他们应该怎么做才有争议;在HTML

规范中删除的提示本身并不清楚，但是他们暗示了与我所看到的这些出版商的风格指南有关的价值。

I guess so :-}

Well, you can *style* your quote with MSIE, as I now proved to myself;
what I can''t seem to produce are any quotation marks. Neither by
default nor with some CSS. Of course, one *should* regard CSS as
purely optional anyway...

cheers (E&OE, of course).

[1] it''s arguable what the heck they''re supposed to do with nested
quotes in different languages; the hints that are dropped in the HTML
spec itself are unclear, but they hint at something which is at
variance with such publishers'' style guides as I have seen.

这篇关于&LT; Q&GT;和IE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！