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

Re: Getting beyond the ping pong match

From: Rene Saarsoo <nene@triin.net>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 10:54:54 +0300
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.trx5lsrsexn25i@localhost>

Dão Gottwald wrote:
> You write "It's not the copyright class and how it's used, it's the  
> principle", and then start with two other special class names.
>
> I agree that "note" and "issue" are too ambiguous. Consequence is that  
> they shouldn't be predefined classes, rather than that there should be  
> no predefined classes.

Agreed.

But the main point I was trying to make is, that the meaning
of any name you choose, more or less depends on the context
it is used. For example I could have a page, that discusses
different search-algorithms. It looks sensible to use class
"search" when referring to different algorithms:

   <span class="search">BubbleSort</span> takes more time
   than <span class="search">QuickSort</span>.

I can also use multiple class names to achieve completely
new meanings:

   <div class="search results"> ... </div>

Or there could be police website, that lists different
warrants - including search warrants:

   <ul id="warrants">
     <li class="search">Permission to search Joe's apartment.</li>
     <li class="kill">Special permission for 007</li>
   </ul>

You could have the same class name at many places in one page,
and it could mean different things depending on the context.
CSS is also context-aware, supporting descendant selectors.

But with predefined classes the context is stripped off.
Program looking for predefined class says: "I see a class
'search' there, so there must be a search field."

(I apologise, that my examples are completely made-up, and this time
only cover one single proposed class name. But you can't say,
that they are wrong, and no-one would do something similar.)


> Neither can you assure that there won't be a new set of names
> that can be added.

I don't understand this scentence. Can you rephrase it?


> Authors don't even have to know any of the predefined classes -- they  
> can use names that they find useful! The question is whether or not some  
> meanings should be exposed to user agents.

But can I use a predefined class name in some other sense than
the spec defines it, if I find it useful?


--
Rene Saarsoo
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 07:54:04 GMT

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