- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:38:10 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22996
steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
>
> > I think this is an interesting solution to the problem but, since
> > <blockquote> is a sectioning root, I think <footer> is more apt for
> > <blockquote> metadata. It also requires less markup and (for me at least!)
> > less congnitive reconfiguration.
>
> It is not clear to me why you consider that the section root feature has as
> consequence that the metadata element should be kept inside (rather than
> outside) <blockquote>. And, FWIW, <figure> is a sectioning root as well.
>
> (The meaning of 'section root' is: """can have their own outlines, but the
> sections and headings inside these elements do not contribute to the
> outlines of their ancestors""".)
>
> > In addition, I think the <figcaption> has a less coupled relationship with
> > its sibling <blockquote> than the <footer> would as a child element.
>
> Well, they would then both be generic children of <figure>, and as such they
> would be on equal footing and 'together'. (It could perhaps be a useful
> pattern for footnotes?) If we are talking about the generic level, then it
> can also be seen as a good point to keep them separete. After all, one
> (blockquote) is a quotation while the other (figcaption) is not a quoation
> ...
>
> AT the HTML5doctor page, Oli pointed to a reply from Hixie [1]. In this
> reply, Ian suggested to introduce a new <credit(s)> element rather than
> changing <footer>.[1] And such a new element seems like a better idea than
> <footer> if first we want to place metadata inside <blockquote>. Quoting Ian:
>
> """
> I expect we will eventually create a <credit> element that goes inside
> <blockquote>, <figure> or <figcaption>, <caption>, and maybe other
> contexts as well. At the moment, I'm deferring adding it so that we can
> see how <figure> and the other new elements do in the wild.
> """
>
> The pros of <credit> are that it:
> a) avoids the problem of "what if I want to quote a <footer>?",
> and thus is easier to understand.
> b) is a new element - we don't need to change the semantics
> of an existing elemen - plus that it is easier to fine tune
> a new element for this purpose, rather than adding more
> gotchas to an existing element
> c) can be used for giving credit also inside <figure> and
> eventually in other elements.
> d) does not have a name that indicates that it should be
> placed at the foot of the element - a <credit> could
> just as well go at the start of the element.
>
> [1]
> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2012-February/034822.html
the spec says:
"The footer element represents a footer for its nearest ancestor sectioning
content or sectioning root element. A footer typically contains information
about its section such as who wrote it, links to related documents, copyright
data, and the like."
note 'its nearest ancestor ... sectioning root element'.
I don't see why any change would need to be made to <footer. to make it
suitable for its use as a container for citation information, the only change
would be to the definition of blockquote.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 18 August 2013 19:38:12 UTC