- From: Alexander Savenkov <w3@hotbox.ru>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 02:07:37 +0300
- To: www-html@w3.org, "Philip TAYLOR [PC336/H-XP]" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
2003-01-16T22:23:42Z Philip wrote: > fantasai wrote: >> > Then use class="green" instead! >> >> Of course I can do that. But my *point* is that once >> "special" was used for the green paragraph, it could >> not be used for the pencil box description. It applies >> equally to using "green". If I use "green" for the >> green paragraph, I cannot use "green" for the pencil >> box description. > This really is a ridiculous display of naivety : the > creation of class names requires a reasonable degree > of inventiveness if they are to be inherently meaningful -- > just because you can think of only "green" and "special" > as being appropriate says nothing about HTML (the topic > of the list) or even about CSS (which is actually what > is being discussed) but says a lot about your own > linguistic limitations ... Although I agree with Philip on 'style' attribute's nature which is quite out of the HTML scope (and strictly speaking XHTML UAs have to know nothing about the "special rules" for its contents), it's absolutely impossible to agree with those gratuitous insults. They're at least inappropriate for the list (this is however just my estimation, I'm teaching no one). --- Alexander "Croll" Savenkov http://www.thecroll.com/ w3@hotbox.ru http://croll.da.ru/
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 18:10:34 UTC