- From: Dao Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
- Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:50:07 +0200
- To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- CC: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>, public-html@w3.org
Laurens Holst wrote: >> Secondly, using attributes for "subclassing" can be a descent into >> madness: >> >> | <div role="section article">...</div> >> | <role="div section article">...</> >> > > That’s taking it too far obviously. The section types have in common > that they’re all sections. Div doesn’t really mean anything. A role > element means even less than div. I think you can hardly call it > ‘subclassing’ at that point. It wasn't a role element, but an empty-named element (wtf?) with a role attribute. Frankly, I don't get what Matthew was trying to say there. > Role just needs to be defined so that it’s very clear that it’s not an > equivalent of the class attribute. If the current definition of the class attribute isn't clear in terms of that classes should be semantic, that can and should be fixed. Pre-defined classes can help there as good examples, btw. I also think risk of really breaking existing sites is low. --Dao
Received on Saturday, 7 April 2007 15:50:24 UTC