- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 14:13:25 +0100
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Shaun Moss <shaun at astromultimedia.com> wrote: > Please explain to me how it makes sense for a comment to stand on its own. Works just as well as all those blog posts that are just commentary on something someone else has written. (And which often are syndicated as comments via pingback.) >> To an HTML author, especially a newbie, an article *is* a newspaper article, > and this is entirely distinct from a user-submitted comment related to the > article. Semantics isn't just for robots, it's for humans, too - a fact that > seems to be frequently overlooked. This seems a rather Anglophone-centric argument. In any case, it turns out to be very hard to come up with concise names that are unambiguous. For example, <cite> has often been misunderstand as intended to wrap a quotation rather than a source or title. That it is hard to name things unambiguously is not necessarily a good reason to introduce more names. > This may come as a surprise, but 99.9% of HTML authors don't read specs. When it comes what to what markup blogs and CMSes should churn out to structure the page, this hardly matters. The 99.9% will be generating content via WYSIWYG editors, and the results of their labors will be dumped into the relevant HTML5 structural elements, as generated by code produced by the much smaller segment of authors with marginally better spec awareness. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 06:13:25 UTC