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

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

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:27:08 +0100
Message-ID: <50FFD71C.5030703@w3.org>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 23/01/2013 13:17 , Steve Faulkner wrote:
>> 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.

Right, I figured that might be the issue  but you didn't say :)

One thing that would be helpful here would be to understand a11y use 
case for providing a strong distinction between the two. I'm guessing 
navigating to the useful parts of the document and skipping the inanity, 
but I'm no expert.

One thing that I find annoying with comments is that they tend to be 
available by default, which lengthens the page. In turn, I tend to base 
decisions to read now or later on the size of the scrolling widget  
which is then thrown off.

I wonder if recommending to mark comments up as <article> inside 
<details> would address the sort of issue you had in mind.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 12:27:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 January 2013 12:27:15 GMT