W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2006

Re: [XHTML 2.0] emphesis

From: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:33:33 -0400
Message-ID: <449CA47D.6010106@gmail.com>
To: tina@greytower.net
CC: www-html@w3.org

Hash: SHA1

Tina Holmboe wrote:
>   There is /no meaning added/ by
>   the CSS class name.
>   None.
>   Not unless you define it that way and get everyone and everything
>   supposed to interpret same to agree with you. There is no semantics in
>   class names.
>   Now, this might just be me misunderstanding, but I have seen quite a
>   few examples of this idea tossed about. We have to be very clear on
>   it: the way document markup languages are set up at the moment, we
>   agree upon semantic interpretation of structural elements, and that's
>   it.
>   CSS doesn't enter into it, nor does attribute values. HTML covers a
>   hundred per cent of what it covers - there is nothing added in terms
>   of meaning by CSS.

Ah, but class and id are NOT CSS-related.  CSS can target based on them,
but they are part of the markup, and technically CAN add semantic
meaning.  It's just at this point there is no agreed-upon method of
doing so.

Isn't this why role was added as well?  role is supposed to allow tying
an HTML tag to an RDF tuple, isn't it?

Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

Received on Saturday, 24 June 2006 02:33:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:13 UTC