- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:27:08 +0100
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 23/01/2013 13:17 , Steve Faulkner wrote: >> Concerning exposing the semantic differences between the two, why >> not handle that with RDFa/Microdata? See http://schema.org/Comment >> and >http://schema.org/Article? Or perhaps more appropriately for >> this specific usage http://schema.org/BlogPosting and >> http://schema.org/UserComments? > > I am skeptical of the practicality asking user agents to modify the > semantics based on rdf/microdata or ask developers to add it to > provide info to the accessibility layer. Right, I figured that might be the issue — but you didn't say :) One thing that would be helpful here would be to understand a11y use case for providing a strong distinction between the two. I'm guessing navigating to the useful parts of the document and skipping the inanity, but I'm no expert. One thing that I find annoying with comments is that they tend to be available by default, which lengthens the page. In turn, I tend to base decisions to read now or later on the size of the scrolling widget — which is then thrown off. I wonder if recommending to mark comments up as <article> inside <details> would address the sort of issue you had in mind. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 12:27:14 UTC