- 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