Example using q element is inconsistent with spec

[dschuessler]

What is the issue with the HTML Standard?

According to the spec, the "q element represents some phrasing content quoted from another source.".

At the same time, the second example for how to use the aside element uses the q element for a pull quote, i.e. a quote from the same source.

So either the example misuses the q element or the spec misrepresents its meaning. It would be great if this inconsistency could be resolved.

[domenic]

Your interpretation of "another source" as "another document" is not the intention of the text, but I can see how it would be confusing. It's just meant to say "don't make up quotations with no source".

If you have better suggestions, that would be welcome.

[dschuessler]

I'd suggest leaving it at "The q element represents some quoted phrasing content".

A q element that is for some quotations but not others is counterintuitive. This is evidenced by MDN, W3Schools, GeeksForGeeks, and other secondary sources about the q element that appear at the top of search results for it. They all say that the q element is for quotations, without any further qualification.

Of course, this line of reasoning extends to the blockquote element as well.