[Bug 23019] Add ’quotations’ as one the types of content <figure> can be used to annotate

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23019

--- Comment #4 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> ---
(In reply to comment #3)

> Okay, I'm all for this <q> in a <figure> with <cite> in <figcaption> thing.
> That's good. I don't think much needs to change for <q> except your
> suggestion of explicitly adding the terminology "quotation" to the advice. 

+1

> But... I'd still like it to be clarified (RE the original bug
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22996#add_comment) why
> "Attribution for the quotation, if any, must be placed outside the
> blockquote element."

An issue for a bug that deals with the definition of <blockquote>.

> I appreciate that there could be confusion over whether you were, in fact,
> quoting a <footer> rather than applying one _to_ quoted content, but what
> would it matter when, conceptually, a <footer> from the source would surely
> have the same clarification/attribution role as it would within it -
> certainly the footer that is the direct descendant of the <blockquote>...

It is tempting to answer. However, this too, sems like an issue for a bug that
deals with the definition of <blockquote>. Please eventualy repeat it in some
such bug.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 18:32:24 UTC