- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:45:14 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Bruno Racineux <bruno@hexanet.net>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013, Bruno Racineux wrote: > > <article> is fine for a comment as syndicate-able and self-contained. > Even a LOL comment. People often publish full "articles" that are far > less useful or intelligible comment that a LOL. I just wish it was <art>. It's probably too late to change the name now. > I however propose a <social> element, to encompass the semantic of > social interaction around the context of the main article, which could > be tweets, comments, discussions, reviews, testimonials, forum feeds, > rating etc. What would _not_ be social? Isn't pretty much every Web page by definition a social interaction, since it was caused to be produced by one human, and was produced so as to cause some impact on another human? > What we need is not marking up individual comments differently, but a > semantic on the whole block. > > Consider the case of someone using a screen-reader wanting to jump to > comments. The only way to do that right now, is to hope that a comment > link is around. But because there are no standards in terms of where > that would be he/she has to skip through links. I would think that > jumping to comments right away is potentially a slightly painful thing > to do atm. And there are no landmark roles for that either that I know > of. An AT can provide a "jump to comments" feature quite easily -- the first comment is the first nested <article>, and all other comments come after it (since if one came before it, by definition, it wouldn't be first). > Comments don't seem to quite fit as an <aside> or <section> Why would they not fit in <section>? They're in the comments section. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 23:48:21 UTC