W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > September 2011

[whatwg] <comment> and <ad> elements

From: Odin <odin.omdal@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 10:36:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CACZFz7OrCDFE7+JeeTrdist0QzbDd5uYzX3WySQ8iVG6KUzOxA@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Shaun Moss <shaun at astromultimedia.com> wrote:
> Yes, but this is not semantic!!! Comments are not articles. They are
> completely different. Comments can appear in reference to things that are
> not articles (such as status updates), and therefore would not appear inside
> an <article> tag - so how would the browser recognise them as comments?

It is semantic.

Comments *are* in fact articles. You're thinking of it in the wrong
way. Article is not a newspaper article, but something that would make
sense to stand on its own.

So, a *nested* article is defined to be dependent on the outer
article, but still it is it's own content and can be syndicated as a
individual content piece that's related to the parent article.

It makes perfect sense and is quite beautiful and doesn't require a
whole slew of tags. It's very nicely done.

And comments /are/ syndicated. Just look at WordPress. When I read
blogs in Liferea, I get the blog posts, as well as each individual
comment loaded from the syndicated comment-stream from that particular
blog post.


<article>
  <h1>HTML5 is great</h1>
  <p>Yup. It is.</p>
  <footer><p>By Me</p></footer>

  <article>
    <p>You're so correct!</p>
    <footer><p>By Ben</p></footer>
  </article>

  <article>
    <p>Better than butter, I say</p>
    <footer><p>By Adam</p></footer>
  </article>

</article>



Perfect is the enemy of good. Cue in xhtml2. :-)

-- 
Beste helsing,
Odin H?rthe Omdal <odin.omdal at gmail.com>
English, technical: http://tech.velmont.net
Norsk, personleg: http://velmont.no
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 01:36:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:36 UTC