On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:03:49 +0100, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Simon Pieters wrote:
* Providing contact details of any type for any person or organisation.
Would generalizing address to that extent would prevent automated agents
being able to distinguish an <address> for a <article> (e.g. a blog
comment) from an <address> mentioned in a <article>?
Yes. Do UAs need to know the scope of the <address>? What could they do
with this information? (If it is important, then we could use a class name
or a new attribute for this IMHO.)
This would make it
more difficult to construct functionality for citing by or replying to
author.
<address> has been around forever. Yet no UA has done anything useful with
its semantics as far as I know. That suggests to me that the use-case is
not a real-world one. Isn't it better to make <address> more general so
that its semantics is more like how most authors use it so that it becomes
a convenient styling hook for authors?
Creating an <author> element might help resolve that problem for
new content, but then agents would have to sniff content to work out
what sort of content was under investigation. A better alternative might
be a new element <contactinfo>, which is a more general name than
<address> and doesn't make old content more ambiguous.
I don't think it's a good idea to invent a new element when the use-case
is so weak that most authors don't bother using it and no UA have
implemented anything useful with it. I'd rather drop <address> altogether.
--
Simon Pieters
