W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > September 2009

[whatwg] article/section/details naming/definition problems

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:28:36 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0909161124580.5185@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Bruce Lawson wrote:
> 
> Seems to me that (current) sections aren't for syndicating (tabs, 
> chapters etc), while blog posts (currently articles) *are* for potential 
> syndication (although the cite attribute was recently removed from 
> article).

I've adjusted the spec's definition more in line with this.


> A comment in an article is also marked up as article, but is unlikely to 
> be a candidate for syndication as it's out of context.
> 
> Is this correct?

As James on IRC pointed out:

   http://intertwingly.net/blog/comments.html
   http://firehose.diveintomark.org/
   http://www.zeldman.com/comments/feed/

Also, consider Twitter, Reddit, most forums, etc, where individual 
comments are definitely syndicated.


cite="" was removed because it's already possible to include a permalink 
using <a>, by the way:

   <a href="/1234" rel="bookmark">#</a>

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 04:28:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:52 UTC