Ahh, but the problem with using <blockquote> there is that you're trying to differentiate between content from the site owner and content from contributors. However, both those people are 'authors' on the blog, the blog article and blog comments are both first-hand content. <blockquote> marks up content that is quoted from *another source*, not a secondary author. A comment on a blog does not exist in any other source (online or offline), so you're not 'quoting' it at all.
I think the best way to think about it is that with a blog, there is a difference between the site 'owner' and the site authors. If you enable comments on your blog, you are inviting the world in to be authors too. As a curious twist though (given the way in which most blogging software will merge Trackback and Pingback with directly contributed comments) it /would/ be appropriate to <blockquote> the content snippet from a pinging site, since in that situation the content /is/ second hand. I can see the dilemma, choosing to present the chronological order (ol) vs. presenting more detailed structuring of dialogue (dl). Given that the HTML4 spec. explicitly says that you can use a <dl> for dialogue, the content is implicitly in order. For me, that is a good enough justification for using the more detailed markup of a <dl>. Not 100% sure of how I'd do it; maybe something like this: <dl class="comments"> <dt class="author">Steve</dt> <dd class="datetime">28th May 2005, Midday</dd> <dd class="bodytext">Blah Blah Blah Foo</dd> <dt class="author">David</dt> <dd class="datetime">29th May 2005, Early Morning</dd> <dd class="bodytext">I concur with all that Blah</dd> </dl> Any additional meta data (maybe "in reply to") would be added as further <dd> elements before the body text. For styling (albeit rather ambitious with my CSS support), I might use a CSS counter to number each <dt> (the <dl> has an implicit order), plus some generated content to add a "Comment by " and "on " prefix to the author and datetime fields respectively. It depends on your browser target for something as personal as a blog. Ben On 5/27/05, heretic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <dt>At x:xxpm so-and-so said:</dt> > > <dd>blah blah blah</dd> > > Accurate I suppose although I'm a bit undecided about numbering > inserted as content. Similarly been thinking about markup for search > engine results. > > > <ol> > > <li>At x:xxpm so-and-so said: > > <blockquote>blah blah blah</blockquote> > > </li> > > </ol> > > Thinking this through.... <q> and <blockquote> mark up sections of > content which did not originate from the document's author. So I guess > this is semantically correct on the basis that the hosting site did > not create the content. > > Thinking back to my search results scenario, the document summary > could be considered a quote as well. > > Hmmm. Mental cogs grinding. Hang on, it's supposed to be friday night.... ;) > > h > > -- > --- <http://www.200ok.com.au/> > --- The future has arrived; it's just not > --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson > ****************************************************** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ****************************************************** > > -- http://www.ben-ward.co.uk ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
