Open Bug 1484732 Opened 1 year ago Updated 1 year ago

Is author part of <cite> or not?


(Developer Documentation :: HTML, defect, P3)



(Not tracked)



(Reporter: pam, Unassigned)




:: Developer Documentation Request

      Request Type: Correction
     Gecko Version: unspecified
 Technical Contact: 

:: Details

Concerning  Per Bug 1432084 the community is stating that is more accurate than w3c.  

W3C is using "author" all over their examples in <cite> at
but specifically seems to be saying that author is not part of <cite>

But W3C seems to be saying it is because they use it in so many examples and state that it is... so I edited it in to the first paragraph of <cite> at  but now after reading your Bug 1432084, I am wondering if I was wrong to do this?

Yes, I know that whatwg states they are the best, but I don't believe them.  Sorry.  W3C is so much cleaner and makes so much more sense to me than some of what whatwg has.  But really, I like mozilla because it seems to be the definitive answer and most up-to-date, so I'm trying my best to help you by editing.  Need guidance for future edits, not just this one.  Instead of editing the document, usually I've been sending in a bug report so I don't cause issues.  Is that the best way?  Or should I continue to edit the documents when I feel that it's the best thing to do?
Priority: -- → P3
MDN's official policy for years has been that when WHATWG and W3C disagree, we always go with the WHATWG specification. Unless there's a compelling argument to make an exception (I don't recall offhand any times we've made an exception, though I could be wrong), I would recommend that we restore the original text.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.