[uf-new] Re: Comment Questions

David Janes davidjanes at blogmatrix.com
Sun Nov 16 09:27:29 PST 2008

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Martin McEvoy
<martin at weborganics.co.uk> wrote:
> Martin McEvoy wrote:
>> 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?
> Another Point David...
> Please change your selected examples[1] so that they only include a single
> comment ie:
>   <li class="" id="comment-3979">
>       <cite><a href='...' rel='external nofollow'>chase</a></cite> Says:
>       <br />
>       <small class="commentmetadata">
>           <a href="#comment-3979" title="">October 21st, 2006 at 5:25 pm</a>
>       </small>
>       <p>hurry, hurry, hurry …</p>
>   </li>
> This will keep tis discussion on track and NOT get distracted with grouping
> comments (that should be up to the author dont you think?)
> [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/comment-examples#Selected_Examples

This has reached the point of insanity: __this is what is in the
examples__. You don't get to pretend that you get to mark up one
comment but not the one next to it. You're trying to frame the
discussion to shoehorn a pre-made solution idea (rel=in-reply-to) as a

This makes as much sense as writing a microformats for comments that
contain the letter "q" but not the letter "u".

David Janes
Mercenary Programmer

More information about the microformats-new mailing list