If the browsers don't really support Q wouldn't that mean that we'd prefer people here to continue to use <blockquote>? It isn't as if our use of Q is going to cause browsers support to improve. So shouldn't Q be taken off that list? I would assume that'd mean we'd prefer people not use it since it doesn't really work.

What is the browser support-state for INS and DEL? I assume they are as well supported as STRIKE, right? If not, why are we introducing them?

First, Q is for a different purpose than Blockquote. Yes, if browsers don't support Q, we shouldn't really use it in post, but that's no reason for not allowing it. I'd guess the new table tags (thead, tfoot, tbody, col, colgroup) are not well supported either, but they are allowed. (Also super-search for <q> and see that a few people have used it even when it was not allowed.)

I don't really know how much the tags are supported in different browsers. If we can get information about many browsers and see that Q is not supported, we should put a note in the allowed tags list that it's deprecated, but we should definitely not deny it.

Firefox shows <Q> properly as a quotation mark. Here's a <Q>test quote</Q>. If you have time, try this in different versions of IE, NS, and other browsers, and if it does not work in many of them, convince the gods to make Q deprecated.

I agree that disallowing these isn't nice but it seems odd to be adding support for these otherwise buggy tags at this late date. You know, because we'd rather people didn't actually use them.

I get the Q tag correctly in firefox and Konqueror, but not IE 6.

Also, it'd be good to test nested Q tags: <q>She said <q>I said <q>you said</q>, you know?</q></q>. Konqueror gives me all double quotes for those, which isn't quite correct.

"There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.