[Bug 23175] Use of <cite> in <blockquote> has conflicting semantics

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23175

--- Comment #12 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> ---
(In reply to steve faulkner from comment #9)

> I also think that it is a rabbit hole to consider the markup in quotes being
> taken from the source.

(By ”from the source” you no doubt meant “from the source code“.)

I agree that it would be wrong of authors (as well as of consumers) to *expect*
that the content of a <blockquote> uses the same markup as the original work
from where the quote is taken.

My mention of <footer> was a “what if it happens” kind of statement. E.g. if,
using Firefox, I copy something and paste into BlueGriffon, then the markup of
the original source will be included, including <footer> - and <cite>. And
since it is WYSIWYG, the author might not realize it.

Regarding https://twitter.com/stevefaulkner/status/375934134234796032, then

* may be spec should say that authors SHOULD remove <footer> (and possibly
other confusing markup, like <a> etc) that are not relevant in the new context
where the quote is placed etc? 

* may be you should have a discussion of the ”meta issue” - stating that the
quotation does not need - and often shouldn’t be - a verbatim copy of the
original source. For inspiration, the spec, in the <p> element definition,
includes has a good meta discussion about what a paragraph, in HTML, is. May be
a similar discussion about what a quotation is, in HTML, could be included as
well:

   “The solution is to realise that a paragraph, in HTML terms, is
    not a logical concept, but a structural one.”

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

Received on Friday, 6 September 2013 19:00:41 UTC