- From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:59:26 -0400
- To: tina@greytower.net
- Cc: "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, www-html@w3.org
On 6/26/06, Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net> wrote: > On 23 Jun, David Woolley wrote: > > class is not a CSS class name. ... > > It should still be a sub-classing of the semantics. One is in a > > halfway house, where the sub-classing is not universal, but in a > I disagree. Semantic interpretation should be associated with > elements, not attribute values- IMHO, but I would hope that isn't > needed. Yes, ideally the meaning would be conveyed entirely by the elements. What should happen when a "required" element does not exist? Adding it to your local variant is tag soup. Not representing it at all is worse. Classes are the recognized extension mechanism. The standard doesn't (and won't) define what a class means, but does indicate that *some* meaning is attached, and that elements with the same class have *some* shared meaning. The standard itself does not define precisely this extra shared meaning is, but effectively reserves that definition for user extensions. -jJ
Received on Monday, 26 June 2006 19:59:34 UTC