Hacker News Reader

<cite> is also pure joy. From MDN:

> It's worth noting that the W3C specification says that a reference to a creative work, as included within a <cite> element, may include the name of the work's author. However, the WHATWG specification for <cite> says the opposite: that a person's name must never be included, under any circumstances.

In short, if you want to avoid making errors, just don’t use <cite>.

I find this interesting, and wish the W3C could work this out more: In one possible future, 'cite' elements (and the absence thereof) could be used to inform/assist human and automatic fact checking.

It doesn't have clear semantics. <cite> is basically used as "I want something in italics, and it is the title of something" rather than "here is a reference to a creative work". And it gives the lie to semantic markup: we only ever have semantic markup for things we can reasonably expect to be visually set-off. Something like a persons name or a cut-off phrase are never marked up semantically; there could be massive benefits from semantically attributing lists of city/state combinations in flowing text but it just doesn't happen. There's nothing more than semantically attributed visual markup, rather than being semantic markup, and this kind of renaming of <i> is just going overboard.

There are also other things that are not emphasized, but require italics per typographical convention, <i lang="la">e.g.</i> foreign-language fragments.