W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Is the current definition of the article element in HTML useful?

From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:04:16 -0000
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wrc2deach8on37@bruce-pc>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:36 UTC