On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:56:11 +0200, Aryeh Gregor
<simetrical+...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Oli Studholme <whatwg....@boblet.net>
wrote:
<blockquote>
<p>[block quote]</p>
<footer>— <cite><a href="…">[title of work]</a></cite></footer>
</blockquote>
This is incorrect according to the current definition of <footer>.
Footer definition:
“The footer element represents a footer for its nearest ancestor
sectioning content or sectioning root element. A footer typically
contains information about its section such as who wrote it, links to
related documents, copyright data, and the like.”
This means it's tied to the nearest <section> or <article> or such.
It's not supposed to be specifically related to any other type of
ancestor, like <blockquote>.
<blockquote> is sectioning root.
Simon felt that “Content inside a blockquote must be quoted from
another source” excludes footer.
s/footer/attribution/
Indeed since it's a conformance requirement, in valid documents the
content inside blockquote is quoted from another source. If the spec were
to allow attribution inside blockquote, the above conformance requirement
would need to be changed to allow it.
However the footer definition reads
to me that footer is basically metadata *about* content (the
non-footer or -header content of the sectioning or sectioning root
element).
Correct, but it's supposed to be metadata about the whole section, not
about just its parent.
However, I don't know if there's any specific way to mark this up.
It's a common pattern, so it would be a good candidate for adding
here:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/links.html#common-idioms-without-dedicated-elements
It's useful to be able to put the author info in its own element so
that you can style it differently.
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
