- From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:08:22 +0100
- To: Heydon Pickering <heydon@heydonworks.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi, karl@la-grange.net, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
On 15 August 2013 21:19, Heydon Pickering <heydon@heydonworks.com> wrote: > > The reason I suggest <figure> over <blockquote> is by the simple expedient > that <blockquote> doesn't have an equivalent of > <figcaption>; it doesn't have an element for saying "a bunch of information > - author, source, description, whatever - about the > thing". There's no reason why a <div> and some spans can't be hooked up with RDFa/ microdata for a bunch of information, inside a <figure> and <figcaption> now for "advanced" use-cases like that. My proposal to allow <blockquote> Blah <cite>Your mum</cite></blockquote> is for simple, common uses such as those documented by Oli Studholme http://oli.jp/example/blockquote-metadata/ > > Ultimately, <figcaption> is clumsily named. We should be using <caption>, as > we do with tables, for both <blockquote>s and > <figure>s. In fact... If we were starting with a clean slate, yes.This was suggested, but <caption> is weird - there are legacy pages, legacy CMSs and legacy browsers to be supported. See this 2006 discussion, for example http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-November/007971.html
Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 07:08:50 UTC