[whatwg] <comment> element
shaun at astromultimedia.com
Mon Sep 5 15:08:27 PDT 2011
The link you've sent contains numerous comments, none of which can stand
on their own. Also, this example comment is long and well-written,
deliberately selected from "bestof", to try and make your point.
However, 90%+ of user-submitted comments are much more trivial. Consider
most facebook comments.
Comments have two distinct features that distinguish them from articles:
1. They are submitted by users, not content managers.
2. They are in reference to something else on the page, whether it be an
article, link, forum topic, blog post or another comment.
On 2011-09-06 5:17 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Shaun Moss<shaun at astromultimedia.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-09-05 6:36 PM, Odin wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Shaun Moss<shaun at astromultimedia.com>
>>>> 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
>>>> 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.
>> Please explain to me how it makes sense for a comment to stand on its own.
> For example:<http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/cf1n2/holy_fuck_i_just_saw_someone_get_hit_by_a_train/c0s4de4>
> (Comment pulled at random from r/bestof.)
> A comment is an individual piece of work that may be usefully cited on
> its own. It's related to the parent article (which may be another
> comment, or may be the original blogpost), but it can be usefully
> viewed by itself and syndicated.
More information about the whatwg