- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:34:42 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Richard Summers wrote: > >> > >> I was wondering, is there any plan to implement a <comment> element > >> within the HTML5 spec? I?m suggesting this as a complimentary element > >> to the <article> element. > > > > There already is one: <article>! We defined it such that if you nest > > them, the nested ones are defined to be comments. There are some > > examples of this in the spec. > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> > >> 1. Differentiating between the main article and user-generated > >> content in response (you bring this up). ?Would this be useful for > >> search engines? ?I'm not sure. ?Would it be useful to weight comment > >> content differently from article content? ?Perhaps weight links in > >> comments less than links in the rest of the page? > > > > This is already possible: a nested <article> has this semantic. > > This seems like a very unintuitive solution. If this really is a use > case that is worth addressing, I think it would be worth coming up with > a dedicated element. In general, elements that have different meaning > depending on in which context they appear usually doesn't feel very > intuitive and thus likely something that people will miss or get wrong. <article> has just one meaning: content that it would make sense to syndicate; or to put it another way, content for which a CMS could reasonably have a dedicated permalink page. When it's nested in another, it just means that the inner article is a response to the outer one, in the same way that a <section> in another <section> is a subsection of the first, or that an <h1> in a particular <section> is a heading for that section. I don't think this is a different meaning. On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > I agree. In particular, I want to sometimes nest articles without one > article being a comment on the outer one. Could you describe such a case? I'm finding it hard to imagine a situation where an article literally nests another, without <aside> being more appropriate. > The <body> element is supposed to be the "default article" for the page, > too - it would be odd if <article>-in-<body> acted differently from > <article>-in-<article>. I don't think it's accurate to consider <body> to be equivalent to <article>. You wouldn't syndicate much of what is in a <body>, only the article itself (e.g. you wouldn't syndicate the footer, site nav, etc). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2011 17:34:42 UTC