W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: argument for deprecating BLOCKQUOTE in canonical HTML/XHTML

From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:59:12 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.2.20070404110116.00aa0648@mail.muzmo.com>
To: public-html@w3.org

At 03:42 PM 4/4/2007 +0200, Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:20:31 +0200, Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>A BLOCKQUOTE is a distinguished paragraph.
>>>
>>>Visually, right?
>>
>>Visually, aurally, semantically.
>
>How is a blockquote distinguished aurally and semantically in a way that
>can't be conveyed through visual and/or aural style sheets?

I didn't say that it would be impossible to convey a distinction through 
style sheets.
But if that was the only criteria, we could eliminate most block and inline 
elements
and rely on <div> for most blocks and <span> for most inlines.

>>>Which elements are <p> and <ol>'s inline equivalents?
>>
>>They are block elements. They have no inline equivalents,
>>except when you write your style sheet to treat them as such
>>which may be confusing to your readers, but you are welcome
>>to do so.
>
>Why would a horizontally aligned list be confusing to readers, especially
>if it is a menu?

Exactly. If it is a menu, why are you using a list? Lists are presentational.
Why aren't you arguing for better menu facilities? Why do you want to
pick a fight with <q> and <blockquote>?

>How does presentation have anything to do with the
>elements the visual effects are applied upon? If I mark up my content with
>ul+li, dl+dt+dd, strong+span, or whatver, the visual effect could be
>exactly the same, but the underlying semantics would be wildly different.

Again, that would seem to imply that you want elements which are tied to
a specific set of semantics. I am with you. You don't have to try to eliminate
features that other people want/need in order to get what you want/need.

>>They make sense because they are a common feature of documents.
>>I haven't seen anybody complaining about <aside>, which is a
>>distinguished paragraph, or <section> which is a distinguished <div>.
>
>I have my doubts about <aside>, but that's another discussion. <section>
>enrichens the semantic structure of our documents in a way only a new
>element can do. <blockquote> does not enrichen a document in a way <quote>
>couldn't. And seeing how <blockquote> is being abused today, I don't see
>how we can fix it. The better option is thus to deprecate it and move
>forward.

Deprecating <blockquote> would impoverish HTML. <section> is interesting,
but why stop there. There is a whole list of elements that could enrich the
structure of HTML documents. Chapter, Foreword, Introduction, Glossary, Index
and so on.

Anyway, I am not going to argue this point any further. This writer/publisher
likes <blockquote> and <q> and would be against deprecating them.

Regards,

Murray
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 16:02:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:52 GMT