Re: Proposal for the deprecation of <blockquote>

>They don't need to. Semantics on that level of detail don't matter. If
semantics of that level of detail fall in the forest, no one is there
to hear it.

Perhaps you could explain, in this case, why so many discussions have taken
place
on the subject for such a long time (see the reading material it would take
"some time"
for me to digest offered by Karl Dubost).

> See the opening quote at http://hsivonen.iki.fi/producing-xml/ . That
level of markup is fine.

Self-referentiality aside, I wasn't asking for your advice on how to mark
up a <blockquote>.
The point is that your pattern belongs to a disparate set of
interpretations (using <cite>, <footer>, rel="author"
or combinations of these). I believe the specification could offer a firmer
solution, for obvious benefits to authorship
and potential benefits to AT.



On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Heydon Pickering
> <heydon@heydonworks.com> wrote:
> > I'm writing to propose the deprecation of the <blockquote> element
>
> Way too broadly used to be deprecated or obsoleted.
>
> > Without a dedicated element, how are parsers supposed to know which
> contents
> > of the <blockquote> are the quotation itself and which contents are
> _about_
> > the quotation?
>
> They don't need to. Semantics on that level of detail don't matter. If
> semantics of that level of detail fall in the forest, no one is there
> to hear it.
>
> See the opening quote at http://hsivonen.iki.fi/producing-xml/ . That
> level of markup is fine.
>
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@hsivonen.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
>