- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:56:07 +0200
- To: "Robert Brodrecht" <w3c@robertdot.org>, asbjorn@ulsberg.no
- Cc: dao@design-noir.de, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:05:22 +0200, Robert Brodrecht <w3c@robertdot.org> wrote: >>> Because stuff can be quoted inline and across blocks. If QUOTE is >>> inline, you can't wrap block-level content without violating the spec. >> >> Why do you have to constrain it? > > I don't think *he* is constraining it. The spec, traditionally, is. I > can think of no element that is both structurally inline and structurally > block at the same time (ignoring TD/TH, which is a weird case and not the > same as the suggested <quote>-as-block-and-inline examples). There is no > precedent for it. <ins> and <del> would be precedents. They're a pain to style though in the non "inline" case. It's still not really clear why we so badly need a new element here. <blockquote> has been abused sure, but that goes for <table>, <img> et cetera as well. Creating a new element doesn't automatically make authors not abuse it. Besides, browsers have to retain support for <blockquote> and <q> indefinitely (and thus we need to figure out how they need to interoperably support them) and authors are already being "trained" to use those elements by standardistas. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 19:56:51 UTC