The link you've sent contains numerous comments, none of which can stand
on their own. Also, this example comment is long and well-written,
deliberately selected from "bestof", to try and make your point.
However, 90%+ of user-submitted comments are much more trivial. Consider
most facebook comments.
Comments have two distinct features that distinguish them from articles:
1. They are submitted by users, not content managers.
2. They are in reference to something else on the page, whether it be an
article, link, forum topic, blog post or another comment.
Shaun
On 2011-09-06 5:17 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Shaun Moss<sh...@astromultimedia.com> wrote:
On 2011-09-05 6:36 PM, Odin wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Shaun Moss<sh...@astromultimedia.com>
wrote:
Yes, but this is not semantic!!! Comments are not articles. They are
completely different. Comments can appear in reference to things that are
not articles (such as status updates), and therefore would not appear
inside
an<article> tag - so how would the browser recognise them as comments?
It is semantic.
Comments *are* in fact articles. You're thinking of it in the wrong
way. Article is not a newspaper article, but something that would make
sense to stand on its own.
Please explain to me how it makes sense for a comment to stand on its own.
For
example:<http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/cf1n2/holy_fuck_i_just_saw_someone_get_hit_by_a_train/c0s4de4>
(Comment pulled at random from r/bestof.)
A comment is an individual piece of work that may be usefully cited on
its own. It's related to the parent article (which may be another
comment, or may be the original blogpost), but it can be usefully
viewed by itself and syndicated.
~TJ
