[wp-trac] [WordPress Trac] #40031: Consider Adding Web Annotations to WordPress

[WordPress Trac]

#40031: Consider Adding Web Annotations to WordPress
-----------------------------+------------------------------
 Reporter:  MikeSchinkel     |       Owner:
     Type:  feature request  |      Status:  new
 Priority:  normal           |   Milestone:  Awaiting Review
Component:  Comments         |     Version:  trunk
 Severity:  normal           |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                   |     Focuses:  ui
-----------------------------+------------------------------

Comment (by MikeSchinkel):

 Replying to [comment:14 dshanske]:
 > ''"I agree working toward annotations in WordPress is an admirable goal
 and support it, especially since too many active members of the community
 seem to be focusing on business use cases."''

 +1

 > ''"To the more practical aspects of it, I am approaching it from the
 perspective of where annotations are stored and where the subject of
 annotations are stored because I think it is a prerequisite to storing the
 relationship between the two. I think those two actions should be taken
 with the third in mind."''

 We are in agreement along those lines, at least in the abstract.

 In specific it would see to me that annotations for comments made on
 another site could easily be stored in `wp_comments`, and the subject of
 the annotation would be stored by wherever it is published.  To be
 explicit though, the annotation includes links to both the annotation and
 its subject so storing that info in a Web Annotation JSON format in
 `wp_comments` would seem appropriate to me.

 > ''"You want persona, which is a form of identity, to be the post type so
 it can have comments attached to it."''

 To be more precise I proposed `persona` as one way this use-case could
 work seamlessly with the existing data schema and existing UI, with only
 minor tweaks.  There may be other equally appropriate solutions though.

 > ''"But there is also the user table, which is where WordPress has
 designated identity is to be stored."''

 So over the past several years almost every WordPress site we have worked
 on has needed to present information about people on the front-end so I
 have dealt a lot with people-as-content vs. people-as-users.  Our
 conclusion has been that the User system in WordPress is optimized for
 authentication but not for presentation, and that Post Types are best used
 when there is a need for presentation.

 Thus ''"Personas"'' as proposed would be related to presentation and not
 as authentication so they seem more appropriate as Post Types than as
 Users.  And Users do not handle different email addresses well -- which is
 more closely aligned with the concept of a persona; for that you'd have to
 create a different user for each email address and then loose the natural
 association with a single logged in User.

 Still, this implementation is the least important aspect of this proposal.
 And I only argue for `wp_comments` because I think that would reduce the
 scope of seeing this come to life vs. using `wp_posts`.

 As an aside, I think the choice of post type for Menu Items was one of the
 most regrettable legacy decisions ever made for WordPress. But I have yet
 to work with Changesets so really can't speak to the wisdom of using post
 types for that. FWIW.

 > ''"I'd like to see what others have to say on the matter as well."''

 Agreed.

 > ''"I'm the one who is usually advocating for a different W3C standard,
 Webmentions"''

 I am only vaguely familiar with Webmentions but the reading I just did
 tells me they are effectively more modern trackbacks?  If no, what am I
 missing?

 If yes then I am not seeing the same value in those as I see in Web
 Annotations.  That said, Webmentions seem orthogonal and complementary to
 Web Annotations so maybe this proposal, if accepted could incorporate
 both.

--
Ticket URL: <https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/40031#comment:15>
WordPress Trac <https://core.trac.wordpress.org/>
WordPress publishing platform