Re: argument for deprecating BLOCKQUOTE in canonical HTML/XHTML

Anne van Kesteren said:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:05:22 +0200, Robert Brodrecht <>
>   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.

Interesting.  I thought those were inline-only.  Addmitedly, from the HTML
4.01 spec:

> These two elements are unusual for HTML in that they may
> serve as either block-level or inline elements (but not both).
> They may contain one or more words within a paragraph or
> contain one or more block-level elements such as
> paragraphs, lists and tables.

That's an odd duck.  I wonder if a <quote> would have the same styling
issues you've had, Anne.

> 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.

I think that is why "this was abused" is a bad argument.  It's not our job
to make things fool-proof.  No one can police how these elements are used.
 We can only attempt to make clear the correct way to use them.

Robert <>

Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 21:47:44 UTC