Re: argument for deprecating BLOCKQUOTE in canonical HTML/XHTML

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 01:00:12 +0200, Lee Roberts  
<> 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 &quot;  
> 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           -=|=-
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2007 09:40:26 UTC