- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:46:44 +0000
- To: public-html@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12990 Summary: The footer element (Sections, Elements of HTML). Request for clarification. Re: Interaction of <blockquote> with the prohibition on nested <footer>s. "When the footer element contains entire sections, they represent appendices, indexes, long colophons, ve Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Platform: Other URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#top OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) AssignedTo: ian@hixie.ch ReportedBy: contributor@whatwg.org QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org, public-html@w3.org Specification: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/ Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#top Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#top Comment: The footer element (Sections, Elements of HTML). Request for clarification. Re: Interaction of <blockquote> with the prohibition on nested <footer>s. "When the footer element contains entire sections, they represent appendices, indexes, long colophons, verbose license agreements, and other such content." But I expect appendices or similar would often include <blockquote>s (or just a plain <article>) which would want to include a <footer> to mark up attribution, copyright information, etc.) Given that the spec prohibits such nesting, I would like it to comment on this. Ideally it would suggest which semantic might be more important to mark up explicitly. I.e. is it more important to be able to mark up the attributions with <footer>, or to mark appendices as <footer> material? I think the implication is that it's _not_ particularly important to enclose appendices using <footer> (and it should probably be avoided if there's a chance of hitting this problem). But a casual reader who was not initially aware of the conflict could be left with the opposite impression. Possibly the reference to appendices should be removed altogether. The examples regarding indexes and long license agreements are already quite expressive. Posted from: 86.53.68.233 User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1 -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 19 June 2011 09:46:50 UTC