On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:01:13 +0900 (JST)
Hiroki Sato <hrs@NetBSD.org> wrote:

> Jan Schaumann <jschauma@netmeister.org> wrote
>   in <20050419141700.GE13189@netmeister.org>:
> 
> js> > Why not use <blockquote/> tags instead?
> js> 
> js> Mainly because nobody noticed that this might be a good tag. ;-)
> 
>  Hmm, I think the both of <note> and <blockquote> are wrong.
>  If we think an URL is part of a paragraph in NetBSD-2.0.2.xml
>  <para> should be correct, and if we think it needs to be rendered
>  specially <literallayout> should be used.  <note> is for a note
>  and <blockquote> is a quotation from somewhere.

Well, while primary definition of "quote" is a "citation", the another
one might be "emphasize text with quotation marks", isn't it?

From <quote> description [1]:

  ``Using an element for quotations is frequently more convenient than
  entering the character entities for the quotation marks by hand, and
  makes it possible for a presentation system to alter the format of the
  quotation marks.''

Thus, both <quote> and <blockquote> seems allowed to use as text
formatting tags.

Next, please compare the following two exaples:

  <para>More information is available at:</para>
  <para role="indented"><ulink url="URL"/></para>

  <para>More information is available at:
    <blockquote><ulink url="URL"/></blockquote>
  </para>

As you can see, with <blockquote> a structure of the source document is
bit more logical.

I just wish to show you my thoughts about why I'm use <blockquote>.
But in any case, <note> is not appropriate tag here and you patch looks
very well. So if you still prefer <para role="indented"> (or <para
role="emphasized"> ;-) and there are no more comments, please commit it
thus I may finish my translation.

--
Sincerely yours,
Mishka.

[1] http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/quote.html