[whatwg] <comment> element
Richard.Summers at bbc.co.uk
Mon Dec 19 07:26:45 PST 2011
I also brought this up in 2010, after working on the Comments solution for
As <comment> isn't completely backwards compatible, I personally liked the
idea of using <feedback> or <response>. Interesting that this keeps coming
Senior Client Side Developer
Social Publishing Platform
Future Media & Technology
BBC Broadcast Centre
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TP
On 14/12/2011 04:37, "Nikhilesh Jasuja" <nikhilesh at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wanted to see if WHATWG had had any discussions on a semantic element for
> user-generated comments. It's an idea I wanted to propose myself. Found this
> Shaun Moss started and this
> 1 year ago. Has there been further discussion on this after September 6?
> My takeaway from these discussions has been:
> 1. Semantically, user comments are indeed a different type of content.
> At least as much as <footer>, if not more so.
> 2. IE < 9 treats <comment> as an HTML comment. So the new element will
> have to be called something else. <cmnt> was proposed.
> 3. Two new elements may be required:
> 1. to denote a single comment e.g. <cmnt>
> 2. to denote a collection of comments, perhaps also including the
> chrome and widgets used for commenting e.g. <commentsarea>
> 4. Use cases for the new element(s) include
> 1. Users being able to hide comments and comment areas. (I'd like to t
> 2. Easier syndication of both the comments and the parent <article>
> (because parent is now unencumbered/uncorrupted by user comments)
> 3. A signal to search engines analogous to rel=nofollow ("Yes this
> content is on my website but I can't attest to its quality")
> 4. Screen readers can navigate comments more easily..or skip them
> 5. The problems with using nested <article>s for comments are:
> 1. A nested <article> does not necessarily mean a user-generated
> comment. So it's ambiguous.
> 2. For threaded conversations, there would be a lot of nesting.
> Nesting in and of itself is not a bad thing but when trying to syndicate
> the original (parent) <article>, this becomes difficult. A <cmnt
> for="thearticle"> is more elegant.
> 3. A webmaster may want to structure markup in a way that makes
> nesting difficult. e.g. <article id="thearticle">..</article><div
> id="relatedcontent">..</div><commentsarea><form><textarea>your opinions
> for="thearticle">BS!!</cmnt></commentsarea>. In such cases, forcing the
> comments to be nested <article>s would require unnecessary CSS
> to make it look right.
> 6. Alternatives:
> 1. Use <article type=comment>
> 2. A new attribute "in-reply-to" can be used. e.g. <article
> id="themainarticle">Moms rock</article><article id="comment1"
> in-reply-to="themainarticle">you bet</article>
> 7. More suggestions for the name of the elements:
> 1. <usercomment>, <opinion>, <opin>, <publiccomment>, <ucomment> (U
> for user), <feedback>, <response>
> 2. <commentsarea>, <opinionsarea>, <commentset>, <discussion>
> What's the process for introducing new elements into the spec? It must be
> non-trivial ..a new element is a pretty big deal. Do people discuss on the
> mailing list, agree it must be done and then some people volunteer to write
> the spec? I want to help (if the more knowledgeable minds in the group
> agree these new elements are a good idea).
> Nikhilesh Jasuja
> Diffen. Discern. Decide.
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
More information about the whatwg