- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:28:05 +0300
6.9.2011 12:40, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: > "[S]elf-contained composition in a document, page, application, or > site and that is, in principle, independently distributable or > reusable, e.g. in syndication" is a concept that includes comments, > blog posts, and news stories. So there's no contradiction in the spec > here. We probably understand the words "self-contained" and "independently" very differently then. I cannot see a typical comment as self-contained, as it by definition implies the context created by the document being commented on. So how could it be *independetly* reused and syndicated? A typical comment might be a bit more than "Me too!" or "I especially like the second paragraph" or "Gruntmaster 6000 is the best!" But it's seldom written to be self-contained or reusable independently (if at all). > What user problems do the existing solutions to these tasks cause? > > e.g. RSS/Atom feeds, hAtom, old-fashioned scraping for extraction, > syndication of comments. > > e.g. class for styling. Such arguments could be used against _any_ new markup elements (and almost any existing elements - do we really need much more elements than <a> when we can use metadata, styling, and scripting? :-)). > Why do you think we could get enough systems to use the<comment> > element correctly enough to support the creation of new solutions > using the<comment> tag instead? That's the question I've been asking since the start of this discussion, and I am getting _less_ pessimistic. > b) Since a comment is just a "self-contained composition", it can be > marked up with<article> whether nested inside another<article> or > not. If comments are generally "self-contained compositions", what would be an example of a composition that is _not_ self-contained? -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 08:28:05 UTC