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

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

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:17:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+V=_ZAh_H8YqRDQa975kTXi=XTjQ1f_Th=WKWi=cZrhfKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
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
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 12:18:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 January 2013 12:18:42 GMT