[Bug 22996] Modify blockquote element definition to allow citations

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22996

--- Comment #14 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #10)

> Sure, all of the following exist...
  [snip] 
> ... but none of them could be said to actually connect the blockquote to the
> "citation" in a compelling way. [ snip]

The goal is not only “connection”. The goal is the *correct*
connection. Besides, being adjacent is a kind of connection. Further
more, being the last-child of <blockquote> is merely a convention.

> I think the important thing to take from this is that, of the following uses
> of descendants...
  [ snip ]
> ... only <footer>, <cite> and <address> (plus combinations) could be said to
> be real attempts to demarcate the metadata from the main content
> semantically.

Your wording “real attempt” is unhelpful. Clearly, placing the metadata
outside <blockquote>, is a “real attempt“ - and a succcessfull one - in
separating the meta from the content. If you really wanna check out
“real“, then you should also check whether some of the examples used 
microdata, microformats or RDFa (at least microdata were present here
and there).

  [ snip ]

> This brings us back to <footer>. 

It does? Sorry, but you do not sound convincing. I do of course understand that
<footer> is for 'about' information. The issue is, however: whose ‘about’
information? One could define rules for that - saying that under such and such
circumstance, <footer> counts as the current text’s about information (versus
the quoted text’s about information). And that is what Oli suggested to do.
However, given how difficult it is for us, authors, to mentally separate quoted
metadata from unquoted metadata - plus the WYSWIWYG scenario I described in my
previous reply, operating with such rules, is not a bulletproof way of dealing
with the issue.

> And _even if_ you don't agree that <footer> is, after all, the best solution
> for this, surely <footer> should still be a legitimate (optional) descendant
> of <blockquote> (as <h1> etc are) anyway?

<footer> is legitimate, today. It is only that it is then a quoted
<footer>.  Thus: it is not, per the spec’s semantics, the author of the current
page’s footer.

Hey, why this reluctance towards a *new* element? Then we could have “the best”
solution.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 10:53:55 UTC