- From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:35:35 +0100
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:08:46 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > I'd like to rename <article>, if someone can come up with a better word > that means "blog post, blog comment, forum post, or widget". I do think > there is an important difference between a subpart of a page that is > a potential candidate for syndication, and a subsection of a page that > only makes sense with the rest of the page. 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). 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? If so, then it looks to me like article is the correct name - people understand syndicating articles - but there would also need to be a <comment> element (as that's not for syndication). I'm not a fan of baking a new element (article inside article = comment works for me) but I do get asked at demos why there isn't a comment element (and at a live demo last week I typed <article>blah</comment> as a Freudian slip). Perhaps article should be <post>, with the cite element bought back? (Post sounds "syndicatable" is my rationale) Then a comment on it would be a nested <post> (one frequently "posts" comments)? b
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 01:35:35 UTC