[rfc-i] On blockquotes and notes for v3

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun Feb 23 22:58:15 PST 2014

On 2014-02-24 04:56, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Sunday, February 23, 2014, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
> <mailto:paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>> wrote:
>     Greetings again. Based on earlier requests, in
>     draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-02, I added a "style" attribute to <t> whose
>     values are "normal", "blockquote", and "note". In HTML, the
>     blockquote element is often used to indicate "a paragraph with
>     narrower margins to make it look special"; I have never seen anyone
>     other than W3C authors actually put a "cite" attribute in it. HTML

I'm not a "W3C author" and I do, for instance in 

>     has no "note" element.

Yes, but HTML as CSS.

>     Given that it is not clear that anyone will actually use the
>     blockquote style and the cite attribute for anything semantically
>     important, are people OK with me removing them, leaving <t> with

I think it's pretty clear.

>     just the "style" attribute? If so, I would change the "style"
>     attribute to have values of "normal" (the default) and "indented",
>     so it is clearer that the use of the style is for formatting, not
>     semantics. To me, this seems cleaner than having authors fake the
>     formatting with things like empty lists and so on.

People do only have to "fake" things if we do not provide the proper 

> Why wouldn't one use the blockquote style/whatever?  I would.  I've had

So that the quote is styled in a way to stand out; see example above.

> occasion to quote RFCs in my I-Ds, it'd be nice to be able to indicate
> that in the quote element.  But i do think you need an "indented" with
> no specific reason given for it.  Why can't indented be just. <t> nested
> in another?

I wouldn't want to overload <t> with new functionality given its use in 
lists right now.

What we should do is look at cases where people currently abuse unstyled 
lists, figure out why, and provide the right elements for that.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list