- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 17:38:00 +0100
- To: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Cc: Heydon Pickering <heydon@heydonworks.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2013 16:39:08 UTC
FYI use of cite as you do is one of the things I have been reviewing in light of usage and various discussions. feel free to put forward a proposal -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> On 15 August 2013 17:32, Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com> wrote: > On 15 August 2013 17:17, Heydon Pickering <heydon@heydonworks.com> wrote: > > I'm not at all convinced about the use of <cite> as a means of > attribution > > for quotations. The <cite> element is already notoriously misunderstood > > and it would take a specification change just to make it an applicable > > element. This is even before we begin to cludge together the relationship > > between > > <blockquote> and <cite>. > > I'd always used > > <blockquote> > <p>Lawks a lawdy, my bottom's on fire!</p> > <cite>Joan of Arc</cite> > </blockquote> > > but Hixie was adamant that HTML5 shouldn't be backwardsly compatible > with HTML4, which allowed names as well as works to be <cite>d. > > But as no conformance checker can check it, and I find the restriction > unnecessary, I continue to use this pattern, > >
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2013 16:39:08 UTC