Re: Modify blockquote element definition to allow citations

2013-08-19 17:25, Bruce Lawson kirjoitti:
> On 19 August 2013 14:52, Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> Perhaps you counted the use of blockquote for blog and forum entries as
>> being "for its intended use". In such cases, there is normally no external
>> source where the text could have been quoted. A visitor's contribution is
>> not a quotation (though it could be quoted elsewhere, referring to the blog
>> or forum as source).
> why isn't it?

Because it is not a replication of external content.
> I agree with Karl that citation shouldn't be limited to external
> sources; fragment identifiers are fine.
Most blog and forum entries do not cite their source in any way - that's 
because they have no source to cite. Compare this with a blog post 
actually containing a quotation (from another post, for example).

But this leads nowhere. Blockquote as a semantic element is a lost 
cause, and people who try to defend it as "semantic" will have to 
declare most use of blockquote as wrong or to tweak the "semantic" 
definition so that it does not mean anything, or means something very 
abstract.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Received on Monday, 19 August 2013 14:34:32 UTC