W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2013

Re: Proposal for the deprecation of <blockquote>

From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:08:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAFGRecbvZBhoTFjj9i1NXU4LjyYPiZk2z5C=LgiTMctg7Xcew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Heydon Pickering <heydon@heydonworks.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi, karl@la-grange.net, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
On 15 August 2013 21:19, Heydon Pickering <heydon@heydonworks.com> wrote:
> The reason I suggest <figure> over <blockquote> is by the simple expedient
> that <blockquote> doesn't have an equivalent of
> <figcaption>; it doesn't have an element for saying "a bunch of information
> - author, source, description, whatever - about the
> thing".

There's no reason why a <div> and some spans can't be hooked up with
RDFa/ microdata for a bunch of information, inside a <figure> and
<figcaption> now for "advanced" use-cases like that.

My proposal to allow <blockquote> Blah <cite>Your
mum</cite></blockquote> is for simple, common uses such as those
documented by Oli Studholme http://oli.jp/example/blockquote-metadata/

> Ultimately, <figcaption> is clumsily named. We should be using <caption>, as
> we do with tables, for both <blockquote>s and
> <figure>s. In fact...

If we were starting with a clean slate, yes.This was suggested, but
<caption> is weird - there are legacy pages, legacy CMSs and legacy
browsers to be supported. See this 2006 discussion, for example
Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 07:08:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:46:04 UTC