- From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:54:26 -0000
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:41:15 -0000, Richard Summers <Richard.Summers at bbc.co.uk> wrote: > Using <article> elements within other <article> elements feels a bit like > we'd just be replacing <div> for <article>, it seems to remove some of > the > logical distinction between different types of content. > > As the use-case would potentially be huge (previously stated impact to > Blogs/Message Boards/News outlets), is there any more mileage in perhaps > using a <feedback> (or similar) element, as suggested by Bruce Hyslop? > > A <feedback>,or similar, (<response>?) element would distinguish content > as > a response to an article, and therefore denote that it serves a different > purpose to the main content in the <article> element. I'm not sure such gradations of distinction are necessary or desirable. A comment is "a self-contained composition in a document, page, application, or site and that is, in principle, independently distributable or reusable", as is an article that is commented on. As is a news item, a blog post,a book on Amazon.com, a video on YouTube, or a rakish gold sovereign ring on Argos.co.uk. We don't need <news>, <blogpost>, <book>, <video-entry> or <sovereign> - so do we really need <feedback> or <response>? bruce
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 09:54:26 UTC