W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Karl's Comments on 31 Jan 2003 WD of XHTML 2.0

From: Daniel Glazman <glazman@netscape.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:56:17 +0200
Message-ID: <3EAE3E31.6050100@netscape.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

Karl Dubost wrote:

 > Hi to the HTML WG,
 > In the scope of understanding XHTML 2.0 and prepare a specific QA review for 
the future versions of the Working Drafts, I read XHTML 2.0 and I have written 
my comments in a copy of the spec itself. [1]

You write

   KD: You do not specify the possibility for people to extend the semantics of
   their markup by using className if they need a specific semantic which is not
   defined in the XHTML spec. They can use a class="poem", for example.

Just a reminder that CSS 2 Recommendation says at the end of section 5.8.3:

   Note. CSS gives so much power to the "class" attribute, that authors could
   conceivably design their own "document language" based on elements with
   almost no associated presentation (such as DIV and SPAN in HTML) and
   assigning style information through the "class" attribute. Authors should
   avoid this practice since the structural elements of a document language
   often have recognized and accepted meanings and author-defined classes may

I don't say it's antithetic. I say the second prose above is in a REC and 
should not be forgotten.

Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 04:55:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:03 UTC