23314 2013-09-21 10:45:52 +0000 Use of <cite> in <blockquote> has conflicting semantics 2013-09-23 23:28:32 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified All All RESOLVED WORKSFORME P2 normal Unsorted 23175 1 rubys ian faulkner.steve ian josh mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking talktome xn--mlform-iua contributor oldest_to_newest 93615 0 rubys 2013-09-21 10:45:52 +0000 +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #23175 +++ The recent changes in the definitions of <cite> and <blockquote> have been a massive improvement. However, consider the following example: <blockquote> Who is your favourite doctor (in <cite>Doctor Who</cite>)? - <cite>John Smith</cite> </blockquote> We can see that, in that blockquote, there are two different uses for <cite>. The first represents the title of a work, and the second represents the source of the quote. Therefore, there is no semantic way to differentiate between the former and latter meaning. Therefore, I'd like to propose that it should be a requirement for authors to specify the source of a quote inside the <footer> element; rather than this just being optional. Note that this is not a problem with inline quotes, because the <cite> would be outside the quote tags: <q>Who is your favourite doctor (in <cite>Doctor Who</cite>)?</q> - <cite>John Smith</cite> 93648 1 ian 2013-09-23 15:52:48 +0000 Putting the source of the quote inside the <blockquote> at all is non-conforming, so this is a non-issue. (Also, putting a name in <cite> is non-conforming.) The way you distinguish between something that's in the quote and something that's outside the quote is by looking at whether the thing is in the <blockquote> or not. It's actually very simple. :-) 93650 2 ian 2013-09-23 15:53:05 +0000 *** Bug 23315 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 93700 3 josh 2013-09-23 23:28:32 +0000 (In reply to Ian 'Hixie' Hickson from comment #1) > Putting the source of the quote inside the <blockquote> at all is > non-conforming, so this is a non-issue. (Also, putting a name in <cite> is > non-conforming.) > > The way you distinguish between something that's in the quote and something > that's outside the quote is by looking at whether the thing is in the > <blockquote> or not. It's actually very simple. :-) This, to me, is the solution I prefer. However, we now have two specs giving contradictory definitions. Which one should I conform to?