Re: Proposal for the deprecation of <blockquote>

Ok so reading the various historical threads and articles on the issue
there appears to be good reasons for allowing the use of <cite> in context
of an citing an author as well as a title of a work.

Looking at how cite is used in the wild [1] it is often used in this way.

@bruce what are the reasons for restricting to use inside blockquote?


[1] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/377471/tests/cite.html

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 15 August 2013 17:58, Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com> wrote:

> On 15 August 2013 17:38, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >> I'd always used
> >>
> >> <blockquote>
> >> <p>Lawks a lawdy, my bottom's on fire!</p>
> >> <cite>Joan of Arc</cite>
> >> </blockquote>
> >>
>
> OK, so looking at spec
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/grouping-content.html#the-blockquote-element
> I propose the line "Attribution for the quotation, if any, must be
> placed outside the blockquote element" be dropped, and replaced with
> something like "For the programmatic association of quotation and
> source, and to make common print quotation patterns easily achieved
> without extra markup and elaborate CSS, the attribution may be placed
> in a <cite> element inside the blockquote".
>
> The definition of <cite> should remove the paragraph beginning with "A
> person's name is not the title of a work", and  replace it with
> "Inside a <blockquote>, the <cite> element may be used to attribute
> the name of the author of a quote. In normal running text, <cite>
> should not be used around a name; In some cases, the b element might
> be appropriate for names; e.g. in a gossip article where the names of
> famous people are keywords rendered with a different style to draw
> attention to them."
>
> (Examples would need tweaking too)
>

Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 11:11:13 UTC