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

Re: Re[2]: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 18:51:16 -0500
Message-Id: <200301152351.SAA27949@no-knife.mit.edu>
To: Alexander Savenkov <w3@hotbox.ru>
cc: www-html@w3.org, fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>

> Can't believe my eyes. fantasai is saying that classes cannnot be
> reused.

What fantasai is saying is this.  Suppose we have _structured_ markup, ok?  And
I have a document with class="madonna" on some of the elements (the singer).

And I copy/paste some text into it from somewhere else; a document that looks
at religious issues in Madonna's work.  This document has elements with
class="madonna-singer" and class="madonna"; the former refer to a certain
semi-historical personage.

Now what happens when I copy this text into my document in a nice structured
markup world?  My styles get applied to it; most likely this is _not_ what was
intended.  Thus we have a namespace collision, which is what glazou and
fantasai were talking about.

> I also don't believe you don't remember classes can be
> combined.

fantasai remembers this perfectly well.  In fact, that is part of the problem.

> A carefully composed stylesheet usually resolves the issues
> with duplications.

Explain to me how the issue above is resolved, short of me editing my document
to change the classname or editing the pasted text to change the classname.

You may not like to think about it, but this is an issue real authors of real
HTML authoring tools have to deal with.  If you don't want the style attribute,
fine.  Provide an alternative that does something useful.

Boris
-- 
An experiment may be considered a success if no more
than half of your data must be discarded to obtain
correspondence with your theory.
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 18:51:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:54 GMT