[whatwg] New <social> element (was: Various threads with feedback on HTML elements)
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Dec 5 15:45:14 PST 2013
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013, Bruno Racineux wrote:
> <article> is fine for a comment as syndicate-able and self-contained.
> Even a LOL comment. People often publish full "articles" that are far
> less useful or intelligible comment that a LOL. I just wish it was <art>.
It's probably too late to change the name now.
> I however propose a <social> element, to encompass the semantic of
> social interaction around the context of the main article, which could
> be tweets, comments, discussions, reviews, testimonials, forum feeds,
> rating etc.
What would _not_ be social? Isn't pretty much every Web page by definition
a social interaction, since it was caused to be produced by one human, and
was produced so as to cause some impact on another human?
> What we need is not marking up individual comments differently, but a
> semantic on the whole block.
> Consider the case of someone using a screen-reader wanting to jump to
> comments. The only way to do that right now, is to hope that a comment
> link is around. But because there are no standards in terms of where
> that would be he/she has to skip through links. I would think that
> jumping to comments right away is potentially a slightly painful thing
> to do atm. And there are no landmark roles for that either that I know
An AT can provide a "jump to comments" feature quite easily -- the first
comment is the first nested <article>, and all other comments come after
it (since if one came before it, by definition, it wouldn't be first).
> Comments don't seem to quite fit as an <aside> or <section>
Why would they not fit in <section>? They're in the comments section.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg