"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fi> schrieb am Sun, 12 Feb 2012 07:46:07 +0200:
> The <blockquote> has been, and will be, rather pointless without > markup for “credits” (indication of author and source, which are > normally required by law). Why do you hate the cite attribute? > […] > Seldom does an author wish to quote an entire section. It is not even > legal to quote more than is required to fulfill the acceptable > purpose of quoting. Elaborate? > I don’t think I have ever quoted anything that could sensibly be > called a section. And I don't think I have ever had a need for providing credits that went beyond having a URI in the cite attribute and a corresponding hyperlink in the surrounding prose. > […] > Wrapping <blockquote> inside <figure> just to be able to present > “credits” as <figcaption> is highly artificial. It is also clumsy, > especially considering that it would have to be the *normal* way of > presenting a block quotation to satisfy legal requirements. May I conjecture that lawyers and judges function almost entirely unlike markup validators? Also, “normal” according to what rulebook? > If we start from the semantic and logical concept of a quotation, > then it should be obvious that the element should have a subelement > for providing source information (“credits”), normally at the end of > the element. That would needlessly complicate parsing the contents of a blockquote element quite a bit. Conceding that there is quite some content there that is marked up in this (incorrect) way … why would it not be “obvious” ro have a “for” attribute for the cite element? > The reason why this has not been so from the beginning > is that <blockquote> was really designed for indentation, though it > was _named_ after one use for indentation that the designers had in > their mind. And that’s how it has been used. <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1866#section-5.5.4> reads different. It even suggests an alternative presentation style for quotations we are currently using (prefixing with brackets instead of intendation). > Since in current usage, <blockquote> means just “indent” more often > than not, browsers and search engines should not and will not imply > any specific semantics for it. Thus it will be pointless to use it. Riveting tale, chap. Can you provide proof? Anecdotally, I could tell you exactly one site (a forum) that uses blockquote for intendation and dozens (mostly blogs and wikis) who use it for quotation. > So leave <blockquote> as legacy markup and recommend it to be used, > in new documents, only for indentation in rare situations where an > author much prefers indentation even in the absence of CSS. How do you propose to treat legacy content? > And design markup for quotations so that suits practical needs and > legal requirements. For this, introduce <quotation> with <src> as a > subelement An alternative might lie in using some kind of framework … for description … of resources! Are you reasonably sure that Dublin Core or similar vocabularies can not help you with this use case? >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Core> Cheers, -- Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann <http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net>