- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:50:04 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22996 --- Comment #18 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> --- (In reply to comment #17) > 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. +1 Agree. This is not the problem. > 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? While an “about text” could clarify the source of the very quotation, <footer> as “about text” container may cause uncertainty w.r.t. the source of the very annotation w.r.t. whether it stems from the same source as the quotation itself - or from the current text. This doubt is fuelled by the fact that the footer would change semantics (with regard to authoringship) once it is pasted into <blockquote> - in the original text its voice would be the same as the voice of the section where it appears, whereas inside <blockquote>, its voice would change to mean “the voice of the author of blockquote’s parent element”. Also, to visually distinguish footer from quotation, the <footer> would probably need to be styled differently when inside <blockquote> compared when outside, and my hunch is that a styling that differs based on context is not going to be popular amongst implementors (but may be I am wrong in this detail). For more, see bug 23021. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 20:50:05 UTC