W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2013

Re: [whatwg] use of article to markup comments

From: Adrian Testa-Avila <whatwg@custom-anything.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 10:31:06 -0800
Message-ID: <5105726A.2000905@custom-anything.com>
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On 01/26/2013 05:30 AM, Bruce Lawson wrote:
>
>>
>>> (It makes some sense, I suppose, to think of comments as a "list", but
>>> *unordered*? If you're going to group them at all, wouldn't the order
>>> be important? Bruce Lawson (
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Jan/0111.html)'s
>>> observation that comments are "heavily dependent on context" would seem
>>> to support the idea that it *is* important, especially since some
>>> comments are responses to others.)
>>
>> agreed it would be better to use order lists.
>>
>
>  Wordpress blogs, for example, have comments like
>
> "Bob Smith said at <a href="#permalink">9.55 on 31 Febtember</a>: LOL"
>
> Thus, every comment has a link that a UA can use to jump from comment 
> to comment. The order is implied via the timestamp. So what's wrong with
>
> <article>
> <h1>Witty blogpost</h1>
> <p>lorem ipsum
>
> <section>
> <h2>35 erudite and well-reasoned comments</h2>
> <div>Bob Smith said at <a href="#permalink1">9.55 on 31 Febtember</a>: 
> Can I use DRM in Polyglot documents?</div>
> <div>Hixie said at <a href="#permalink2">9.57 on 1 June</a>: What's 
> your use case?</div>
> ...
> </section>
>
> </article>
>
> In short, why should the spec suggest any specific method of marking 
> up comments?

I think examples are useful for clearly illustrating the spec.  An 
example in the spec shouldn't be construed as "the only right way" of 
doing things, of course.

So, maybe a better question is why should the spec suggest only one 
specific method?


-- 
Adrian Testa-Avila
adrian@custom-anything.com <http://www.custom-anything.com/contact>
follow on facebook <http://www.facebook.com/customanything>
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2013 18:32:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:12 GMT