[uf-new] Re: Comment Questions

[Martin McEvoy]

Toby A Inkster wrote:
> Martin McEvoy wrote:
>
>> I have proposed a schema for a "comment" which re-uses Atom/hAtom terms
>> there is also some example markup for all to view
>
> I don't see why you feel the need to create a new schema "which 
> re-uses hAtom terms". 
because it is desirable for people to be able to track  comments that 
they have made on other peoples blogs, as well as keep track of comments 
made on their own blog, without having to re-visit the blog to check on 
responses...

> What's wrong with simply using hAtom as it is (possibly with the 
> addition of Sarven's "in-reply-to" proposal)? 
because a "comment" does not fit into the concept of a hEntry, comments 
lack the entry-title element, in fact a "title" it is almost 
non-existent in a comment.

I like Sarvens Idea to use Atom Extensions, But I have issues with 
in-reply-to because its not a part of the Atom spec and may require 
extra prefixing(namespacing) for it to be represented correctly in hAtom 
terms,
> There is no need to re-invent the wheel each time for feeds of 
> comments, feeds of opinions, feeds of jokes, feeds of poems, feeds of 
> witty Groucho Marx quotations, etc. Start within hAtom as a base and 
> refine it for your needs, adding additional terms only if strictly needed,
That is exactly what the schema proposes!
> but not removing anything. 
Which I havent....
> That way, the majority of your format will be parsable with standard 
> hAtom tools 
The majority of the proposed comment schema[1] will work with standard 
hAtom tools
 
....

Thanks

[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/comment-brainstorming#Schema

-- 
Martin McEvoy

http://weborganics.co.uk/