u-comment should move to core/stable

[dshanske]

u-comment - optionally embedded (or nested?) h-cite(s), each of which is a comment on/reply to the parent h-entry.

The h-entry spec identified p-comment as a optionally embedded (or nested?) h-cite(s), each of which is a comment on/reply to the parent h-entry. Being as the URL would be proper for a citation in most cases, it should be a u proposal.

u-comment - identifies the element as a comment on the h-entry, for comment discovery when reading an h-entry. Optionally an embedded h-cite

There seem to be a sufficient amount of examples. https://indieweb.org/comments#IndieWeb_Examples

[gRegorLove]

I went through https://indieweb.org/comments#IndieWeb_Examples and confirmed among still-published examples:

• 5 examples using u-comment
• 2 using p-comment

Per change-control, I think we still need 3+ consuming implementations.

Stable features (e.g. Core Properties) must in addition be published and consumed in the wild on multiple sites by multiple implementations (3+ different sites and implementations for publishing and consuming)

[nex3]

https://aaronparecki.com/2013/05/21/4/xkcd and https://waterpigs.co.uk/notes/4QgMZN/ both use e-content rather than p-content in their h-cites for comments. Is that a shortcoming of https://microformats.org/wiki/h-cite? Or should comments be in a microformat that allows embedded HTML?