W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2013

Re: Proposal for the deprecation of <blockquote>

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 17:38:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+ri+V=iMsgr2o=dPaU0jNMyqyJdPMjT7nUw=fP+LpuAaVgQbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Cc: Heydon Pickering <heydon@heydonworks.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
FYI
use of cite as you do is one of the things I have been reviewing in light
of usage and various discussions.

feel free to put forward a proposal

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 15 August 2013 17:32, Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com> wrote:

> On 15 August 2013 17:17, Heydon Pickering <heydon@heydonworks.com> wrote:
> > I'm not at all convinced about the use of <cite> as a means of
> attribution
> > for quotations. The <cite> element is already notoriously misunderstood
> > and it would take a specification change just to make it an applicable
> > element. This is even before we begin to cludge together the relationship
> > between
> > <blockquote> and <cite>.
>
> I'd always used
>
> <blockquote>
> <p>Lawks a lawdy, my bottom's on fire!</p>
> <cite>Joan of Arc</cite>
> </blockquote>
>
> but Hixie was adamant that HTML5 shouldn't be backwardsly compatible
> with HTML4, which allowed names as well as works to be <cite>d.
>
> But as no conformance checker can check it, and I find the restriction
> unnecessary, I continue to use this pattern,
>
>
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2013 16:39:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:34 UTC