- From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:28:13 +0100
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