[uf-new] Re: Comment Questions

[Martin McEvoy]

David Janes wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Toby A Inkster <mail at tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
>
>   
>> #3, I think, David first brought to this list, with class="hfeed comments",
>> though I had previously proposed class="hfeed replies" to Sarven off-list a
>> month or two ago. Advantages are that although an explicit connection is
>> given by placing the feed of replies within the thing being commented on, it
>> requires no visible link at the comment level, and no fragment identifiers
>> are required for each comment. This is a big advantage as it closely matches
>> current publishing patterns. The disadvantages though are that it only
>> allows a comment to be in reply to one particular thing; and it forces
>> publishers of threaded messages to use one particular layout (the threaded
>> one) rather than, say, a purely chronological order as the latter would lose
>> connections between comments. (The threaded layout is of course the most
>> common in practice, but in general microformats have historically steered
>> away from enforcing any particular layout.)
>>     
>
> "hfeed comments" has been kicking around since February, off list, and
> I got the photos to prove it ;-)
>
> I'm not sure why you think #3 forces a particular layout. Let me state
> more formally:
>
> * if Entry "B" is in an Entry Comments element of Entry "A", then
> Entry "B" is a comment on Entry "A"
> * an Entry Comments element is identified by using both class names
> "hfeed comments"
>
> That's it: you've got 100% coverage of all examples with no
> presentation change and no required or implied changes to format
> needed.
>   
David, you are asserting that all comments are grouped in some way, for 
this you should use xoxo  this will give you the implied structure of a 
comment list, a fair amount of the examples do imply structure and 
grouping in this way by using <ul>, <ol> <dl>,

"hfeed comments"  is simply wrong because you are implying that "hfeed" 
is required? if that's not true you are saying you can  just use 
"comments" does this mean that hfeed is Implied? if that's the case then 
what is the point of using "hfeed" at all? , lastly all of  this doesn't 
address a comment, it only addresses the grouping of comments not the 
comment this discussion does not go there (remember?).

as for all the assertions you, and others are making "that a comment 
should be marked up in hatom" is also wrong because certain basic 
requirements of hAtom do not exist in a comment, an entry-title and a 
bookmarkable point (only 40% have a permalink), comments made on other 
things (not blogs) very rarely have a permalink also saying if an 
entry-title is not present "make something up" is false semantics, you 
are saying that something exists when it quite clearly doesn't

I tried to get the conversation about a comment going again because it 
really is a simple format to build and couldn't understand why a comment 
format hasn't been addressed yet,  now I know why, because some people 
don't understand what the problem is and have preconceptions of how this 
should be solved, which should be the simplest way, which is not dumping 
the whole hAtom format on it, what If I don't want to use hAtom to mark 
up  a comment? I haven't got much choice have I?

-- 
Martin McEvoy

http://weborganics.co.uk/