So I was reading your redux to the <abbr> article, which I've often found myself referencing when in doubt about my own markup, and while I like the new rules in theory, there are a few potential issues I see.

Firstly would be that what you have defined for <dfn> conflicts with the spec.

whatwg.org/…

"If the title attribute of the dfn element is present, then it must contain only the term being defined."

Which means that explanations of terms, rather than the terms themselves, would technically be invalid use of @title.

Secondly, does <cite> belong inside <blockquote>? Again I turn to the spec -

whatwg.org/…

"The blockquote element represents a section that is quoted from another source."

The attribution for the citation is not a part of any section from the work that is being quoted; it is being added in by the referencing work's author.

Lastly, you state that we *should* use <cite> for blogs/articles, but not for website names. Aren't these often the same thing? And why not website names, anyway? I've always sort of seen them as the digital equivalent of books. Some more than others, of course—Although they are both content outlets, I wouldn't use <cite> for Twitter, which is largely a service (and perhaps more akin to software), but I *would* use it for Engadget, which is a proper online publication.