W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2007

[whatwg] article: do we really need this?

From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:33:36 -0500
Message-ID: <45ED6DB0.70702@metalab.unc.edu>
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:

> There is a problem in that <article> might still have no way of
> referencing it, but the fact that is a discrete piece of content
> suggests it should. Could include a conformance requirement for
> <article> to have a fragment identifier (e.g. for comments) and/or a
> permalink (e.g. for blog posts)? e.g.:

I think it's pretty danged important that each such piece have a clearly 
distinguished and unique URI.

However, more often than not this URI is going to point to a different 
page, rather than just the same page+a fragment ID.

In other words, the article is really not even on the page. What's on 
the page is an excerpt and perhaps a link. The <article> element does 
not actually contain the article.

The use cases that are being suggested are real use cases, but they seem 
to be well solved by a section element, probably with some predefined roles.

I don't think the nature of an <article> is likely to be obvious to most 
authors. I don't have a lot of optimism that it will be used in the way 
it's intended, if it's used at all.

?Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo at metalab.unc.edu
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 05:33:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:33 UTC