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

Re: Proposal for the deprecation of <blockquote>

From: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 13:02:43 -0400
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <333E605E-5D80-4575-B0CE-C239C92BCEE0@la-grange.net>
To: Heydon Pickering <heydon@heydonworks.com>
Heydon Pickering [2013-08-15T12:17]:
> That aside, 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.

`cite`, like `address`, where badly chosen names for any languages with latine roots. :) Just do not forget they are just keywords. The meaning is what the definition makes of them, not the word.

`blockquote` and `q` are the elements for quoting. Now the way I usually explain it and/or use it myself is: "This piece of text in my prose does it come from something which has a URI".

<blockquote lang="fr"
   cite="http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14157/pg14157.html">
<p>Cette exclamation lui échappa:—Comme on serait bien à la campagne !</p>
</blockquote>

but I could have used, if I had decided that I wanted to share that the extract came from this specific book.

<blockquote lang="fr"
   cite="urn:isbn:9782266089951">
<p>Cette exclamation lui échappa:—Comme on serait bien à la campagne !</p>
</blockquote>

The key here is that you just give information about the traceability of the source that's all. Nothing fancy.


> In addition, your "in context" example (reproduced below) appears to be erroneous, since the unsemantic <div> element used to encapsulate the <blockquote>

It's not more or less erroneous than anything else. There are many many ways I could have decided to markup this. I precisely said:

Karl Dubost [2013-08-15T08:42]:
> In both cases the missing feature is the possibility to link those elements together. 


What you are referring to is a shared model for making it useful and indexable by a bigger community of agreements. That's a slightly different topic.  You can see some proposals here
http://answers.semanticweb.com/questions/1198/how-to-express-a-book-quote-into-rdfahtml-use-cases

The success of such a more connected semantic model depends on a community of interests. If all blogging platforms choose the same model, then they can use it in their own templating systems for quoting things from the Web.

If the librarian/literature community find a large agreement they can start to use blockquote in a certain way so that it is useful in their own community. 

The point is the wider the community, the more chances it becomes adopted by the large crowd, but if it's not, it doesn't make it less useful for smaller communities. 


> Compare this with <figure> and <figcaption>, where the relationship is clear and author advice gives guidance on how to deploy the <figcaption> so that the relationship 

`figure` and `figcaption` are two containers which have a definition establishing the relationships in between the two. It's cool. It's not the only ones
`html` and `title`
`table` and `caption`

 and not the only mechanisms.
`label@for` an `input@id`

We could imagine for example (don't copy that at home ;) not standard as of today).

<blockquote 
   for="bouvardpecuchet"
   lang="fr"
   cite="urn:isbn:9782266089951">
<p>Cette exclamation lui échappa:—Comme on serait bien à la campagne !</p>
</blockquote>

<cite id="bouvardpecuchet">Bouvard et Pécuchet</cite>


There are many many ways to achieve the thing (not necessary mutually exclusive).
Adoption by communities of interests is one key.
Implementation is another one.


-- 
Karl Dubost
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/


Received on Thursday, 15 August 2013 17:02:55 UTC

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