On 01/26/2013 05:30 AM, Bruce Lawson wrote:
(It makes some sense, I suppose, to think of comments as a "list", but
*unordered*? If you're going to group them at all, wouldn't the order
be important? Bruce Lawson (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Jan/0111.html)'s
observation that comments are "heavily dependent on context" would seem
to support the idea that it *is* important, especially since some
comments are responses to others.)
agreed it would be better to use order lists.
Wordpress blogs, for example, have comments like
"Bob Smith said at <a href="#permalink">9.55 on 31 Febtember</a>: LOL"
Thus, every comment has a link that a UA can use to jump from comment
to comment. The order is implied via the timestamp. So what's wrong with
<article>
<h1>Witty blogpost</h1>
<p>lorem ipsum
<section>
<h2>35 erudite and well-reasoned comments</h2>
<div>Bob Smith said at <a href="#permalink1">9.55 on 31 Febtember</a>:
Can I use DRM in Polyglot documents?</div>
<div>Hixie said at <a href="#permalink2">9.57 on 1 June</a>: What's
your use case?</div>
...
</section>
</article>
In short, why should the spec suggest any specific method of marking
up comments?
I think examples are useful for clearly illustrating the spec. An
example in the spec shouldn't be construed as "the only right way" of
doing things, of course.
So, maybe a better question is why should the spec suggest only one
specific method?
--
Adrian Testa-Avila
adr...@custom-anything.com <http://www.custom-anything.com/contact>
follow on facebook <http://www.facebook.com/customanything>
