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

On 23 January 2013 12:03, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:
> Which is not to say that I want to reject outright your proposal to reassess
> <article> advice (and I do lament the fact that it is likely too late to
> rename it <infolump>) but it would be a lot easier to figure out whether
> it's worth changing something if you made a more concrete proposal as to
> what you think should change.


well hopefully nothing would be rejected without a reasonable discussion :-)

I have been intentionally vague (sort of like the current artcile
defintion) as I wanted to elicit thoughts from others, but also as I
have not refined my thinking or carried out a in depth analysis as yet
to propose sometning concrete although bruces' comment on comments is
something I agree with.


>Concerning exposing the semantic differences between the two, why not handle that with RDFa/Microdata? See http://schema.org/Comment and >http://schema.org/Article? Or perhaps more appropriately for this specific usage http://schema.org/BlogPosting and http://schema.org/UserComments?

I am skeptical of the practicality asking user agents to modify the
semantics based on rdf/microdata or ask developers to add it to
provide info to the accessibility layer.

-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG