- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 19:30:56 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22996 --- Comment #17 from heydon <heydon@heydonworks.com> --- (In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > > Hey, why this reluctance towards a *new* element? Then we could have “the > > > best” solution. > > > > This bug is about modifying the blockquote definition, its much easier and > > simpler to modify and re-use existing elements where fit for purpose than > > adding a new element. > > Not that it is an argument against the advantage of redefining a current > element, but I am curious how you can avoid modifying <footer> as well. > > Further more, the very simplest thing would be to add wording about how to > use <figure> - as documented, many already *do* place the about text outside > <blockquote>. But as Heydon pointed out, they tend to use elements which do > not direclty link the about tex tot the quotation. Advice about how to use > <figure> for this, can be given without chaning the semantics of anything. > > > If you are enthusiastic about it suggest you work up > > the use cases, data and a draft extension spec for such a new element. > > Sure. There's no need to modify <footer>. Whether or not the principle <footer> is actually quoted from the original source, it is bound to describe the nature of that content. It is a non-issue in most cases and redundant footers can be omitted by authors in other cases, as they see fit, right? Blockquote should allow <footer> to be used at the author's discretion, just as <figcaption> is a discretionary inclusion. Can we agree on that? (I have registered my support of resolving the other bug.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 19:30:57 UTC