W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 2005

Re: domain distinction between @role and @class is unenforceably vague [was: Re: p in address tag?]

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:14:50 -0500
Message-ID: <abd6c8010511100814t6e478412i80ad16459455633e@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

On 11/10/05, Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org> wrote:
> But the precision of commentary conveyed by each is vastly different.
> *summary:
> We can't base usage rules on the differing intent of @role vs. @class in terms
> of what they are trying to communicate.
> Use of @role is indicated when we can, in RDF, say pretty clearly what we
> want a processor to know about an element instance.  Because use of @class
> won't deliver a payload of connotations with anything like the same
> reliability.
> What someone is supposed to know as a connotation or consequence of an
> @class value is up for grabs.  There is no good way to sustain a community
> of common interpretation with regard to that attribute.
> So @role was needed for clarity of machinable annotation, not really because
> there was anything that @class has and enforces that excludes application
> to any domain of assertions.
> It is a second-generation, better-engineered venture into the same
> semantic space. Refining what is known about the current element
> instance. Not a fork into a new semantic space.

Role and class don't mean the same thing in Engligh nor do they mean
the same thing in the proposed XHTML. The relationship is different
and that difference is important. And while the class attribute may be
lost to use, a potential classification attribute may not be.

We cannot ignore this difference as I can assure it it's going to come
up when this moves into the general populace, lest we produce a whole
new set of problems.


Orion Adrian
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2005 16:16:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:12 UTC