W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Research for class="copyright"

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 21:53:05 +0300 (EEST)
To: public-html@w3.org
cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705062132480.20368@mustatilhi.cs.tut.fi>

On Mon, 7 May 2007, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> Of those 58, 46 sites used class="copyright" only for elements that actually 
> did contain copyright information in the markup.

Even if we consider those figures as real, that would mean 12 out of 58 
sites that use class="copyright" for elements that do not contain 
copyright information _at all_.

Counting by sites and not pages is somewhat questionable, and we might 
have different views on the concept of "copyright information". If you are 
especially looking for examples on using class="copyright" for copyright 
information, you will probably find more examples than you would if you 
looked for counterexamples. But let's not go into such details.

What matters more is that many, or most, of your "positive" examples 
contain _mixed_ information, where copyright information (or something you 
count as that) is just a part, maybe a small part. If you count these as 
positive arguments, you could just as well count <body class="copyright"> 
when you find it.

> I never claimed that there were no sites that misused the value.

This is not a matter of misuse. Since class="copyright" has absolutely no 
other meaning in HTML as currently defined than assigning the class name 
"copyright" (which is just a name and could equally well be "foobar"), 
the very concept of misuse would be wrong.

-- 
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 18:53:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:58 GMT