This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 23019 - Add ’quotations’ as one the types of content <figure> can be used to annotate
Summary: Add ’quotations’ as one the types of content <figure> can be used to annotate
Status: CLOSED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: steve faulkner
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on: 22996 23315
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2013-08-20 13:34 UTC by Leif Halvard Silli
Modified: 2013-09-21 10:46 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Leif Halvard Silli 2013-08-20 13:34:27 UTC
CURRENTLY the spec says about <figure>:

”The element can be used to annotate illustrations, diagrams, photos, code listings, etc.”

   PROPOSAL:

Add the word 'quotations', like so:

“The element can be used to annotate illustrations, diagrams, photos, code listings, <INS>QUOTATIONS,</INS> etc.”

I would also recommend to add a note which says that, when used for quotations, the quotation should be placed in a <blockquote> or <q> element.

   JUSTIFICATION/USE CASES

1) From data presented to public-html [*], it seems that many authors, for various reasons, place metadata (such as source info) about a quotation *outside*, but adjacent to, the <blockquote> element. However, from the same data, very few seem to be aware that they can use <figure> plus <figcaption> for this. Hence, this should be pointed out.
  [*] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Aug/0100.html

2) Quotations, especially when they have an annotation, tend to match HTML5’s description of a figure as being ”self-contained” and “typically referenced as a single unit from the main flow of the document”. They can also often “be moved away from that primary content” … "without affecting the flow of the document".

   PROS

* No semantics are changed - it is already allowed. It just enlightens those that are interested in, or satisfied with, keeping the annotation separate from, but still linked to, the quoation.

* No rules are change: This method is compatible with the prohibition on placing metadata inside <blockquote> (or <q>).

* This method of annotating quotations does not prohibit that the HTMLwg *eventually* also adds child element of <blockquote> for annotation. For instance, the spec points out that figure may also be used to annotate <table> - it recommends to not use <caption> in that case, but does not prohibit or deprecate the use of <caption>.

* This method is already in use: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22996#c1

* Figure had good, and improving support, including in AT

* This solution offers a method for annotating the <q> element:
  <figure>
    <q cite="URL">I have a dream</q>
    <figcaption><cite>Martin Luther King Jr</cite></figcaption>
  </figure>

   CONS

* No particular cons.
Comment 1 steve faulkner 2013-08-20 14:18:30 UTC
note the spec already has an example: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-blockquote-element
Comment 2 Leif Halvard Silli 2013-08-20 14:21:33 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> note the spec already has an example:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-
> blockquote-element

Thanks for the welcome note!

In my view, that example supports the appropriateness of the proposal in this bug.
Comment 3 heydon 2013-08-20 15:35:19 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > note the spec already has an example:
> > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-
> > blockquote-element
> 
> Thanks for the welcome note!
> 
> In my view, that example supports the appropriateness of the proposal in
> this bug.

Okay, I'm all for this <q> in a <figure> with <cite> in <figcaption> thing. That's good. I don't think much needs to change for <q> except your suggestion of explicitly adding the terminology "quotation" to the advice. 

But... I'd still like it to be clarified (RE the original bug https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22996#add_comment) why "Attribution for the quotation, if any, must be placed outside the blockquote element."

I appreciate that there could be confusion over whether you were, in fact, quoting a <footer> rather than applying one _to_ quoted content, but what would it matter when, conceptually, a <footer> from the source would surely have the same clarification/attribution role as it would within it - certainly the footer that is the direct descendant of the <blockquote>...
Comment 4 Leif Halvard Silli 2013-08-20 18:32:22 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
 
> Okay, I'm all for this <q> in a <figure> with <cite> in <figcaption> thing.
> That's good. I don't think much needs to change for <q> except your
> suggestion of explicitly adding the terminology "quotation" to the advice. 

+1
 
> But... I'd still like it to be clarified (RE the original bug
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22996#add_comment) why
> "Attribution for the quotation, if any, must be placed outside the
> blockquote element."

An issue for a bug that deals with the definition of <blockquote>.
 
> I appreciate that there could be confusion over whether you were, in fact,
> quoting a <footer> rather than applying one _to_ quoted content, but what
> would it matter when, conceptually, a <footer> from the source would surely
> have the same clarification/attribution role as it would within it -
> certainly the footer that is the direct descendant of the <blockquote>...

It is tempting to answer. However, this too, sems like an issue for a bug that deals with the definition of <blockquote>. Please eventualy repeat it in some such bug.
Comment 5 steve faulkner 2013-09-04 13:15:58 UTC
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:

   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: worksforme
Change Description: none
Rationale: the definition no longer includes a list of appropriate uses, it simply states:

"The figure element represents some flow content, optionally with a caption, that is self-contained (like a complete sentence) and is typically referenced as a single unit from the main flow of the document." 

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element
Comment 6 Leif Halvard Silli 2013-09-04 13:34:52 UTC
OK.Also on the positive side, I saw that you gave an example 

<figure>
   <figcaption>FOO</ficaption>
   <blockquote>BAR</blockquote>
</figure>

in the blockquote definition.
Comment 7 heydon 2013-09-04 13:53:37 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> OK.Also on the positive side, I saw that you gave an example 
> 
> <figure>
>    <figcaption>FOO</ficaption>
>    <blockquote>BAR</blockquote>
> </figure>
> 
> in the blockquote definition.

I have submitted some tweaked advice for <figure> that explicitly allows quotations (if self-contained; not sentence fragments).

Steve is taking a look.