- From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:04:16 -0000
- To: public-html@w3.org
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:41:59 -0000, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I think the definition of the article element in HTML [1] is overly > vague and broad, which leads to intended and unintended use that > undermines its usefulness as a semantic construct for users that > actually consume its semantics such as screen reader users. > > For example, the spec promotes the use of article as a container of, > well, an article and also for each instance of a comment on an article > (example: [2]). > Yet there is no defined method of exposing the semantic differences > between an article in the common understanding of the term and when > used as defined in the broader HTML definition. I [not Opera] propose removing any advice on marking up a comment as <article>. I understand and see the use for marking up an "independent re-distributable infolump" but doubt that most comments are such; they are heavily dependent on context and generally tied to the main article. Thus, I don't really see any need for a <comment> element. Most comments (eg, WordPress blogs) don't have any kind of heading so the outlining algorithm doesn't matter (although other blogs do, eg http://www.alistapart.com/comments/vexing-viewports/) I'd propose re-naming <article> to <infolump> to remove any confusion that it can only be used for a newspaper article (and not a product/ you tube video/ widget) but, alas, that horse has bolted. -- Bruce Lawson Open standards evangelist Developer Relations Team Opera http://dev.opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 11:04:49 UTC