hComment 或 hReview 微格式？
看起来 hComment 微格式 wiki 条目 已经有一段时间没有更新了。 它也看起来像 hComment 和 hReview 非常相似。
hReview 似乎引起了更多兴趣和活动。 然而，我所代表的数据显然是评论，而不是评论。
我应该使用 hComment （这似乎是一个更好的语义匹配）还是 hReview （这似乎有更多的兴趣和活动）？
It looks like the hComment microformat wiki entry hasn't been updated in a while. It also looks like hComment and hReview are very similar.
There seems to be more interest and activity with hReview. However, the data that I'm representing is clearly a comment, not a review.
Should I use hComment (which appears to be a better semantic fit) or hReview (which appears to have more interest and activity)?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（2）
我认为“正确”的答案是您应该自己承担起重振 hComment 社区的责任。 当然，我们都有全职工作，所以很难向老板证明这一点。
我的看法是，由于微格式主要是语义方面的哲学练习，并且（在这一点上）与现有工具、引擎或数据库没有特别相关，因此您应该选择准确且最接近现实的内容，而不是妥协，以便进行更好的讨论和兴趣。
I suppose the "right" answer is that you should take it upon yourself to reinvigorate the hComment community. Of course, we all have full-time jobs, so that's a bit hard to justify to the bosses.
My take is that, since microformats are largely philosophical exercises in semantics and not particularly (at this point) relevant to extant tools, engines, or databases, you should go with what's accurate and closest to reality rather than compromise in order to have better discussions and interest.
考虑到 Google 已开始支持微格式，请使用以下类型：在语义上最适合。
Considering that Google has started supporting microformats, use the type that best fits semantically.