Martin McEvoy wrote:
David Janes wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Toby A Inkster
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#3, I think, David first brought to this list, with class="hfeed
comments",
though I had previously proposed class="hfeed replies" to Sarven
off-list a
month or two ago. Advantages are that although an explicit
connection is
given by placing the feed of replies within the thing being
commented on, it
requires no visible link at the comment level, and no fragment
identifiers
are required for each comment. This is a big advantage as it closely
matches
current publishing patterns. The disadvantages though are that it only
allows a comment to be in reply to one particular thing; and it forces
publishers of threaded messages to use one particular layout (the
threaded
one) rather than, say, a purely chronological order as the latter
would lose
connections between comments. (The threaded layout is of course the
most
common in practice, but in general microformats have historically
steered
away from enforcing any particular layout.)
"hfeed comments" has been kicking around since February, off list, and
I got the photos to prove it ;-)
I'm not sure why you think #3 forces a particular layout. Let me state
more formally:
* if Entry "B" is in an Entry Comments element of Entry "A", then
Entry "B" is a comment on Entry "A"
* an Entry Comments element is identified by using both class names
"hfeed comments"
That's it: you've got 100% coverage of all examples with no
presentation change and no required or implied changes to format
needed.
David, you are asserting that all comments are grouped in some way,
for this you should use xoxo this will give you the implied structure
of a comment list, a fair amount of the examples do imply structure
and grouping in this way by using <ul>, <ol> <dl>,
"hfeed comments" is simply wrong because you are implying that "hfeed"
is required? if that's not true you are saying you can just use
"comments" does this mean that hfeed is Implied? if that's the case
then what is the point of using "hfeed" at all? , lastly all of this
doesn't address a comment, it only addresses the grouping of comments
not the comment this discussion does not go there (remember?).
as for all the assertions you, and others are making "that a comment
should be marked up in hatom" is also wrong because certain basic
requirements of hAtom do not exist in a comment, an entry-title and a
bookmarkable point (only 40% have a permalink), comments made on other
things (not blogs) very rarely have a permalink also saying if an
entry-title is not present "make something up" is false semantics, you
are saying that something exists when it quite clearly doesn't
I tried to get the conversation about a comment going again because it
really is a simple format to build and couldn't understand why a
comment format hasn't been addressed yet, now I know why, because some
people don't understand what the problem is and have preconceptions of
how this should be solved, which should be the simplest way, which is
not dumping the whole hAtom format on it, what If I don't want to use
hAtom to mark up a comment? I haven't got much choice have I?
Another Point David...
Please change your selected examples[1] so that they only include a
single comment ie:
<li class="" id="comment-3979">
<cite><a href='...' rel='external nofollow'>chase</a></cite> Says:
<br />
<small class="commentmetadata">
<a href="#comment-3979" title="">October 21st, 2006 at 5:25 pm</a>
</small>
<p>hurry, hurry, hurry …</p>
</li>
This will keep tis discussion on track and NOT get distracted with
grouping comments (that should be up to the author dont you think?)
[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/comment-examples#Selected_Examples
Thanks
--
Martin McEvoy
http://weborganics.co.uk/
_______________________________________________
microformats-new mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
