- From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:43:16 +0200
- To: "Lee Roberts" <lee_roberts@roserockdesign.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 01:00:12 +0200, Lee Roberts <lee_roberts@roserockdesign.com> wrote: > BLOCKQUOTE should remain because it is a block element. While it does > provide a presentational effect, the usage does indicate that the larger > section of quoted material should stand out from a normal inline > quotation. It should stand out visually, correct? Well, isn't that presentational? "Standing out" does definately mean something else when the text is read by a screen reader, for example, since the whitespace added to the element can't be signified in any way orally. The semantic difference between <blockquote> and <q> (or rather; <quote>) are non-existant. > Q is an inline element and was developed to replace the hard " > coding to present a quotation for inline quotes. Inline quotes can > range from dialogue to a quotation for research references. Thus, we need <quote>, to join the semantics of <q> and <blockquote> into one element, because <blockquote> is abused, <q> is badly supported today and both are insufficiently defined to support all the wide use-cases of marking up quotations. > As I understand the two elements, if I quote a complete paragraph from a > reference that text should be presented differently than a quotation of a > partial or complete sentence. You pretty much pinned it there: "should be *presented* differently". E.g., the difference is only on a presentational level, not a semantic one. When there is no semantic difference and HTML is a semantic language, then why do we have two elements for it? After all, how hard is it to write 'display: block; margin: 1em'? That's the real difference here, and that's definately only presentational. -- Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- asbjorn@ulsberg.no «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2007 09:40:26 UTC