Bjartur wrote: > I'd like to reemphasize that: >> *unsupported by user agents* > So you're saying that because attributes aren't rendered by default, user > agents will ignore them and thus we should not use them?
It's not a matter of "should not." Because user agents ignore them, we *do not* use them. And the main reason why we don't use them is that there's little to be gained: the information isn't presented to the end user. Wishful thinking isn't going to make the @cite attribute any more useful or more widely adopted (either by authors or user agents). > Putting attribution inside <blockquote>s seems like a hack around lax support > for attributes. No, putting attribution inside <blockquote>s solves the real-world use-cases that Oli has gathered together. >> I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you mean "presentational" as in >> "not conveying semantics" or "presentational" as in "visible"? >> > Not conveying semantics. How can you say that the <footer> element would not convey semantics, when it is defined as follows: "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." —http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/sections.html#the-footer-element ...and the <blockquote> element is a sectioning root. The semantics of those two elements match up perfectly. > Interactive user agents should additionally make the cited resource available > in manner similar to how they present other hyperlinked resources Can you please give an example of user agents presenting *invisible* hyperlinked resources? @longdesc, perhaps? Jeremy -- Jeremy Keith a d a c t i o http://adactio.com/
