[uf-new] Re: Comment Questions

[Sarven Capadisli]

As Tantek suggested, it would be better to keep our focus on the
instance of a comment. If I'm understanding this correctly, it means:
what makes this a comment in and of it self?

rel="in-reply-to": What makes this hentry (i.e., the comment) a
response to another hentry?

An hentry with rel="in-reply-to" suggests that it is an entry that is
a response to another resource. This outlines a comment instance. It
is self implied and it doesn't have the requirement of being part of
any markup structure.

I believe it would be better to focus on an type of hentry that is a
reaction (or a response) to some other hentry as opposed to comments
that are usually associated with the main hentry of the page. For
instance, a blog post may be a response to another blog post (e.g.,
technorati's blog reactions).

rel="in-reply-to" fits well into these equations because it creates a
single instance of a comment, response, reaction or a reply.

-Sarven

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Tantek Celik <tantek at cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Martin, David Janes, Sarven thanks very much for your good analysis and back/forth discussion of possible approaches to solving the comment(s) problem(s).
>
> One comment on comment vs comments.
>
> In general it works better to develop microformats (and properties) to represent a single instance of something (rather than multiple instances), and then use the collection/list/pluralization/aggregation features of the context (whether implicit, like multiple contained/descendant elements, or explicit like in an OL/UL as with XOXO) to represent more than one instance.
>
> In some cases that collection itself will/canbe considered an instance of something that has its own properties. Hence hfeed and vcalendar in addition to hentry and vevent.  But even in those cases it is better to focus on the instance first and then the collection later.
>
> Tantek
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin McEvoy <martin at weborganics.co.uk>
>
> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:58:19
> To: For discussion of new microformats.<microformats-new at microformats.org>
> Subject: Re: [uf-new] Re: Comment Questions
>
>
> David Janes wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
> Hello David..
>> How does it detach it? You end up with a page that's structured like this:
>>
>> <hfeed>
>>  <hentry>
>>   <entry-title>My Blog post</entry-title>
>>   <entry-content>Bla bla bla, I have a blog</entry-content>
>>   <hfeed comments>
>>     <hentry>
>>      <entry-content>You are so smart and handsome</entry-content>
>>     </hentry>
>>   </hfeed>
>>  </hentry
>> </hfeed>
>>
>> I don't think there's too many blog pages that don't use this implicit
>> structure.
> Yes having a quick look at the examples I have I would say that you are
> correct.
>
> What the "comment"(singular) problem so to speak is a simpler problem
> than "comments"(plural), and really basic it deals with the singular
> issue of a comment, (solve the simpler problems first) which only
> consists really of a few singular properties such as the author, the
> date, the comment the author made and where it is
>> My apologies if I'm missing something....
>>
>
> No need, many people have misunderstood the comment problem hence thats
> why this subject has splintered off in so many ways[1][2][3], this
> effort will hopefully consolidate this problem(which is really simple[4]).
>
> [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/comments-formats
> [2] http://microformats.org/wiki/mfcomment
> [3] http://microformats.org/wiki/hcomment
> [4] http://microformats.org/wiki/comment-problem
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Martin McEvoy
>
> http://weborganics.co.uk/
>
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-new mailing list
> microformats-new at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
>
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-new mailing list
> microformats-new at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
>