On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Sarven Capadisli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although it works well for chronological comments, doesn't work too > well for threaded comments. > > On a similar note, doing "hentry comment" together [6] works fine for > chronological comments but not threaded. It was this case that led me > into investigating Atom's in-reply-to. But now I understand and agree > that it reflects a minor representation of comments out there as far > as having an anchor with rel="in-reply-to". I certainly don't think "hentry comment" is a great idea, though I've seen this in the wild (Niall Kennedy's blog). > Clearly, our main problem is threaded comments. We are on the same > page here right? Well, I'm not sure. Is it in scope or not? I've certainly taken flak today for saying we have to take into account multiple comments - because that's how they occur in the wild - saying we have talk about "a comment". In either case, I'm still quite comfortable that the "Schema #2" proposal -- baring of course _lots more investigation_ - covers it, for the real-world examples shown. Regards, etc... -- David Janes Mercenary Programmer http://code.davidjanes.com _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
