- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:45:52 +0000
- To: public-html-admin@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23314 Bug ID: 23314 Summary: Use of <cite> in <blockquote> has conflicting semantics Product: WHATWG Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: HTML Assignee: ian@hixie.ch Reporter: rubys@intertwingly.net QA Contact: contributor@whatwg.org CC: faulkner.steve@gmail.com, josh@joshtumath.me.uk, mike@w3.org, public-html-admin@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org, talktome@aboutandrew.co.uk, xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no Depends on: 23175 +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #23175 +++ The recent changes in the definitions of <cite> and <blockquote> have been a massive improvement. However, consider the following example: <blockquote> Who is your favourite doctor (in <cite>Doctor Who</cite>)? - <cite>John Smith</cite> </blockquote> We can see that, in that blockquote, there are two different uses for <cite>. The first represents the title of a work, and the second represents the source of the quote. Therefore, there is no semantic way to differentiate between the former and latter meaning. Therefore, I'd like to propose that it should be a requirement for authors to specify the source of a quote inside the <footer> element; rather than this just being optional. Note that this is not a problem with inline quotes, because the <cite> would be outside the quote tags: <q>Who is your favourite doctor (in <cite>Doctor Who</cite>)?</q> - <cite>John Smith</cite> -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 21 September 2013 10:45:54 UTC