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

Re: Proposal: Chained Classnames

From: Chris Adams <chris@tuesdaybegins.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 08:44:52 -0400
Message-ID: <c4b377210705170544u4ca756d1q7411f9b684770689@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jack Sleight" <jack.sleight@gmail.com>
Cc: "Gervase Markham" <gerv@mozilla.org>, "Charles Ying" <charles.ying@gmail.com>, "Maurice Carey" <maurice@thymeonline.com>, "HTML Working Group" <public-html@w3.org>
Forgive my ignorance: but isn't this entire issue a moot point anyway and be
better left to discussion in the CSS circles?

having the class attribute is really as far as HTML needs to go, at that
point the CSS engine does what it will with the rules defined in the
stylesheet.

So if the CSS engine defines defaults for class names that is wonderful but
not really a task left up for the HTML folks.

-C


On 5/17/07, Jack Sleight <jack.sleight@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > and/or the author may have trusted our promise that class names are
> > not supposed to mean anything
> Ah yes, well that is exactly why I have concerns about the inclusion of
> pre-defined class names at all.
>
> Gervase Markham wrote:
> > Jack Sleight wrote:
> >> Ending underscores are fine, but do we really need a prefix or suffix
> >> at all? I may have missed some of the conversation on this,
> >
> > Just a little bit :-)
> >
> >> but what's wrong with just "copyright"?
> >
> > In summary: some people think that this is a bad idea because this
> > class name (and other undecorated ones) may already be in use on the
> > web with semantics different from those which we propose to apply,
> > and/or the author may have trusted our promise that class names are
> > not supposed to mean anything.
> >
> > Gerv
> >
>
> --
> Jack
>
>


-- 
Chris@tuesdaybegins.com
http://www.tuesdaybegins.com
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 12:45:00 GMT

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