Dave says:

I’d personally use C. Although I would like an F option none of the above. As surely if they’re were more than on e comment this would be incorrect.

Neonailol says:

my choice is B
header means heading of section, in that case of comment
and tag cite according to specification means, that’s text in it is reference to another material

Anton Agestam says:

I would use D, since the author of a comment isn’t really a main resource. The focus should be on the actual content of the comment and therefore I think is the most suitable element for the information about the author.

dima4p says:

Certainly A as the name in the link is not an address nor a citation

Bulat Shakirzyanov says:

I’m not a frontend expert, but I do know that there must be only one ‘address’ element per page, and it represents the author of the current document. Same goes for ‘h1’ tag – one per page.
Now, just by looking at this page markup – the correct answer is B

Kevin Sweeney says:

Well in our last discussion on the subject of authors, I believe we decided <cite> was the way to go. So that makes it a question of B or C. Since the URL (and therefore, anchor tag) is optional, cite take priority over that. Additionally, you can argue that once you add the <a> tag, you are establishing a new relationship, which is from an author (i.e., the simple text of the author’s name)—not a citation—to a new URI.

Mark Bennett says:

D is the most correct for the following reasons:

Answer D uses the <footer> element rather than <header> or <h1>. To quote from the spec, [a] footer typically contains information about its section such as who wrote it. In contrast, a <header> element typically contains, a group of introductory or navigational aids. Therefore, we should use the <footer> element for this markup.

Already answer D is the only option as using the <footer> eliminates the other choices, but for the sake of argument let’s carry on with this exercise.

Answer D uses the <address> element rather than the <cite> element. The spec specifically indicates that the <cite> element represents the title of a work and carries on to say that, [a] person’s name is not the title of a work — even if people call that person a piece of work! Given that the <cite> element is out let’s consider the <address> element. The spec indicates that, [t]he <address> element represents the contact information for its nearest article or body element ancestor. Given that the comments are represented as <article> elements this is a perfect match for the comment author’s contact information.

Matt Menzer says:

D is correct.

Regardless of the prevailing popular opinion, <cite> must not be used for people (aside: because people and works are different entity types with different use cases; I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp). The spec explicitly defines <footer>s as the element for contact information, and the spec also allows for multiple <address>es, each one providing contact info for it’s closes <article> or <body%gt; ancestor.

From the spec: “Typically, the address element would be included along with other information in a footer element.”

Bulat Shakirzyanov says:

after (re-)reading the HTML5 spec for the above-stated elements, I must agree with option D being correct, thanks for an awesome quiz!

Brian Huisman says:

As others have said, D is probably the “right” way. Personally though, I would use A and avoid the use of [cite] and [address] cruft in the comments. I would probably use the HTML link relation rel=”author” on the anchor element.

WebDev says:

Only A. Others suck!

Steve says:

My understanding is that <address> cannot be used as phrasing content, therefore D and E are invalid. If cite was used, then I think B is the correct way as the link is important to the citation, though I believe A is the best for the situation.

Alohci says:

None of the above.

A – This is kind of OK but semantically a bit light. It should be possible to do better.

B and C – As Coby pointed out, this is original content not a citation so <cite> cannot be correct, regardless of whether it wraps the anchor or not, and regardless of whether it is appropriate to mark up peoples names with the element.

D – The preamble to this simplequiz says: “… which is published in the header of the comment …”, so using the footer element cannot be correct, even though in other scenarios, footer might be the more common location for this information. I do not believe that we should follow slavishly every piece of non-normative text in the spec, ahead of using common sense and judgement about how a piece of information is being used.

There’s also the matter that Steve raised about using <address> as phrasing content. While he has a point, I can’t identify any constituency that ls disadvantaged by doing this, and it’s not invalid in HTML5, so I don’t consider it a problem. The use of the address element is adding useful and correct semantic information so it should be part of the correct solution.

E – The h1 element only allows phrasing content, so putting an address element inside it results in invalid mark-up. Although this doesn’t appear to cause any practical problems in current browsers, it seems an unnecessary risk to take when the header element is available.

Furthermore, the address element delimits the contact information for the article so it should wrap the anchor as that clearly forms part of the contact information.

So, in conclusion, my preference would be for D, but using header instead of footer.

However, this leaves a problem; the article doesn’t have any content to serve as a heading for the purposes of the outlining algorithm. It’s one reason why I don’t like the outlining algorithm much. One could use option D but with h1 either in place of footer, or inside of the header/footer element, but it’s impossible to nest h1 and address elements validly in any way. I’d like to see an addition to the outlining algorithm that allowed a div element with a boolean attribute (e.g. <div outline>) to be usable as heading content for the purposes of the outlining algorithm to resolve this problem.

Alohci says:

@Bruce – I didn’t mean that “header” automatically required <header>, more that it was indicative of how people thought about that information in the blog comment context. For that purpose “at the beginning” serves just as well. It’s clear that on this page at least, the “comment by” line is being treated as a header. Its font weight, as well as its positioning and absence of any other heading are, though not conclusive, clues that semantically the “comment by” line is a header not a footer. It fact, the only evidence that <footer> should be used is a single rule-of-thumb line of guidance in the HTML5 draft.

So I stand by my opinion above.

Dan Walsh says:

I’m going for B. A doesn’t include the cite element, C nests the cite inside the A tag, D wraps the name and link in a footer and E uses an H1 when there should already be an h1 heading at the start of the document. Not sure if I’m correct but that’s how I see it.

zcorpan says:

E is invalid, h1 only allows phrasing content as descendants.

D is bogus, address is paragraph-level, so “Comment by” is one paragraph and “Tim Berners-Lee” is another. You would want to wrap the whole sentence in the address.

B and C don’t match the spec — the spec says cite represents a title of work.

A seems fine.

Niels Matthijs says:

This article also inspired me to write a little related/reply article on my own blog. If this is too spammy, you can delete at will :)

http://www.onderhond.com/blog/onderhond/over-semantic-web-html5-abuse

Niels Matthijs says:

“Note: Contact information for the author or editor of a section belongs in an address element, possibly itself inside a footer.”

The interesting thing there is that both “contact information” and “author information” are combined in one single entity (a link on words).

Contact information could well belong in a footer section, but with comments I’m still convinced the author information should be placed in the header as it is vital to interpret the comment itself. Separating a link from its content isn’t all that easy though

Alohci says:

@Rob. Excellent point. So my preferred markup is now:

<article>
<h1>Comment by <a rel="author" href="http://www.myspace.com/timbo/">Tim Berners-Lee</a></h1>
WTF! LOL! U SUCK! KTHXBAI!
</article>

since rel="author" requires the wrapper to be an article element, and h1 works better with the outlining algorithm than the header element does.

Beniji says:

As pointed out, A is the best choice due to incorrect use of the cite element etc.

According to the spec, cite should only be used for the title of a piece of work.

Mike Edward Moras (e-sushi™) says:

My take…

<section>
<header> Joe says: </header>
<section> bla! </section>
<footer> Posted at <time datetime=”2010-01-15T01:23:45Z” pubdate=”pubdate”>3 am</header> as comment </footer>
</section>

toryburchoutletnew says:

Thanks so much for providing individuals with such a spectacular possibility to read critical reviews from this web site. It is always very useful and also full of amusement for me personally and my office acquaintances to visit your web site no less than three times weekly to read the fresh guidance you have got. Of course, we are usually amazed for the surprising things served by you.

sitexplorer.yahoo.com says:

sitexplorer.yahoo.com

Cher Stewart says:

@ Mike – Because nesting an article within an article gives it the role of being a subarticle, indicating it no longer needs to stand on its own to be tagged as an article. I would love to see this added to the role attribute to indicate that it is a subarticle.

Super Late says:

None of the above, they all forgot rel=”nofollow” in the anchor tag.

fdgdf says:

alert(“haii”);