part of my review of 3.12 Phrase elements (citations <cite> element)

Consider changing or dropping the following example (or providing  
further explanation).

quote from draft:
This is also wrong, because the title and the name are not references  
or citations:
"<p>My favourite book is <cite>The Reality Dysfunction</cite> by  
<cite>Peter F. Hamilton</cite>.</p>"
unquote

This does NOT seem like an incorrect usage of <cite> to me.. I would  
say that it IS CORRECT to say either this book and this author are  
referenced in this sentence or this book and this author are cited in  
this sentence. It's simply that we have a somewhat reflexive citation  
or reference in that the book itself and the author himself are the  
citations. So I think this example is too much subtle distinction for  
how authors might use this element. Consider removing that example  
and the preceding introductory sentence..

Consider adding a @type attribute to <cite> with predefined keywords  
in the HTML namespace. These keywords would further differentiate the  
semantics of the element such as: book, article, web, author,  
speaker, authority, etc. Current UAs typically render <cite> in  
italics following the convention of italicizing book titles. So for  
this long-time element we do not even have graceful degradation in  
longtime existing UAs. The rendering of this element should only  
typically be in italics in the particular instance of a  
type='booktitle' (or other lengthy work). Other types, such as an  
"aritlcetitle"  might be rendered with :before and :after quotation  
marks. Often times these particular styles are very dependent on  
publisher / site discretion, so there's no need for UAs to get this  
right immediately.