[uf-new] Comments proposals

Mon Nov 17 08:15:17 PST 2008

David Janes wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Martin McEvoy <martin at 
> weborganics.co.uk> wrote:
>> * reply[1] (comment-link) 60%
> > o By adding "rel-reply" the author is indicating that the page
> > http://someblog/post#comment-001 is a reply for the referring 
> page (see
> > example).

Martin, you've explained this a few times on the list, and I have to 
admit, this is the first time I've "got it". Yes, this does make 
sense as a solution. rel="reply bookmark" would be even better.
I still think rel="in-reply-to" has merit - the cases where it 
overtakes the other solutions in usefulness are of limited number, 
but they do exist. (See Jason's recent message.) In some situations, 
admittedly many which go beyond the "normal" definitions of comment 
systems, the other solutions just don't cut it. If this is going 
beyond the scope of the comments project, then perhaps it is the 
scope that is too narrow?
> This is semantic nonsense. See my previous comments and Toby's from
> last night, i.e. "this [parsing the URL] is a horrible idea"

David, I really think you must be misunderstanding some of these 
proposals. From my reading, none of them have required the URL to be 
parsed. Where Martin says that this:
<a rel="reply" href="http://someblog/post#comment-001">link to this</a>
Means:
<http://someblog/post> has a reply <http://someblog/post#comment-001>
The former URL hasn't been gleaned by chopping up the latter URL -- 
the former URL is the full URL of the page on which the link has been 
found.
Similarly, rel="in-reply-to" doesn't require any chopping up of URLs. 
The following link:
<div class="hentry" id="comment-002">
	<a rel="in-reply-to" href="http://someblog/post#comment-001"
	>parent</a>
	<a rel="bookmark" href="#comment-002">this</a>
</div>
Means:
<http://someblog/post#comment-001> has a reply <http://someblog/ 
post#comment-002>
The former URL is the target of the in-reply-to link, and the latter 
URL is the permalink of the hentry that the in-reply-to link is 
sitting inside.
No URL hacking in either case.
-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail at tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>