W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: IDs? and classes

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:01:35 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Cc: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Are you suggesting something along the lines of <P 
class="http://foo.bar/definition.htm"> ?

That does not seem to be the most elegant way to do things.  Isn't there 
some way to use RDF?  Namespaces?  something else?  I agree that the URI is 
helpful for the person who want to find out about the semantics, but how 
would this be machine-understandable?

I like Marja's original idea of include ID's on elements.  ID's could be 
arbitrary and automatically generated for block elements.  Then, 
annotations could be attached to any element in the document.


At 04:41 AM 6/12/00 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>Actually, in the context of the "semantic web", and RDF, I have a suggestion
>to make, which is that classes be used which are URIs - prefereably real
>ones. This would enable two things to happen:
>  1. An author could explain, at the URI in a dereferenceable document, what
>the class was about or for.
>  2. It would become more or less trivial to make RDF assertions about
>classes, and therefore about how to re-use existing ones rather than create
>new ones for each piece of content.
>In general, I am opposed to making a class if it can be avoided (for example,
>it is better to use the existing CODE element than to produce a style class
>for delineating code examples). In particular I would suggest that the
>semantics of map were not extended in HTML 4.01, merely the syntax, which was
>extended to match in the real world the semantics of the specification. But
>that is a trivial question I guess.
>Charles McCN
>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Jason White wrote:
>   Interestingly, there has been significant resistance, within this working
>   group, to any attempt to provide common semantics to specific values of
>   the HTML CLASS attribute, either within the guidelines or techniques
>   documents. The basic rationale was that the semantics of CLASS values were
>   left completely unconstrained by the HTML specification and it was
>   desirable not to create an inconsistency, or apparent inconsistency,
>   between HTML 4.0 and the guidelines. It was also urged that content
>   developers should have total freedom in creating style sheets to use the
>   CLASS attribute as they wished.
>[and so on]

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 18:01:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:32 UTC