[uf-new] Re: Comment Questions

[Martin McEvoy]

Toby A Inkster wrote:
> Martin McEvoy wrote:
>> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>
> hAtom is still a draft format. This use case might be a convincing 
> argument for hAtom 0.2 to drop the requirement for entry-title, and 
> make it an optional property.
>
>> The majority of the proposed comment schema[1] will work with standard
>> hAtom tools
>> [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/comment-brainstorming#Schema
>
> The example given there doesn't have a root class name of "hentry", so 
> would not be picked up by existing hAtom parsers.
>
You would have to place the current proposed markup inside an hEntry... 
parsers would have to change (a little)

Ok lets re-use hatom terms only this works...

<div class="hentry">
   <address class="author vcard">
       <span class="entry-title"><a class="url fn" 
href="http://contributor.com/blog/">Contributor</a> said</span>
   </address>
   about <abbr class="updated" title="2008-09-01T14:40:45+01:00">72 days 
ago</abbr>,
   <div class="entry-content">
      <p>Hey Great Post</p>
    </div>
   <a rel="bookmark" href="#comment-001">link to this</a>
</div>

Is this proposed mark up acceptable there is a test page here: 
http://weborganics.co.uk/test/test.html

and the extracted Atom Is here: 
http://transformr.co.uk/hatom/http://weborganics.co.uk/test/test.html

Is the above mark-up acceptable to everyone?

Best Wishes

Thanks..

-- 
Martin McEvoy

http://weborganics.co.uk/