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

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

From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:28:13 +0100
Message-ID: <op.u0cktbwmh8on37@bruce-pc>
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:28:36 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:

> 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.

Groovy.


>> 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.

Yup. Makes sense to me.
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 04:28:13 UTC

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