W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Getting beyond the ping pong match (was RE: Cleaning House)

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 19:54:31 -0700
Message-ID: <463BF1E7.8030602@sicking.cc>
To: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>, www-html@w3.org

Dão Gottwald wrote:
> 
> Jonas Sicking schrieb:
>>
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> On May 4, 2007, at 9:30 AM, John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:
>>>> One of the most exciting (to me) developments in the XHTML camp is the
>>>> emergence of the ROLE attribute - as it now provides a means of 
>>>> "explaining"
>>>> what something is or does... To quote the W3C spec:
>>>> "The role attribute takes as its value one or more white-space 
>>>> separated
>>>> QNames. The attribute describes the role(s) the current element 
>>>> plays in the
>>>> context of the document. <snip> It could also be used as a mechanism 
>>>> for
>>>> annotating portions of a document in a domain specific way (e.g., a 
>>>> legal
>>>> term taxonomy)."
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/#s_role_module_attributes
>>>
>>> The purpose of the "role" attribute is addressed in HTML5 by the 
>>> "class" attribute, along with predefined classes.
>>
>> Personally I think this was a very poor decision. The problem is that 
>> you have user names and standard names mixed in the same namespace. So 
>> there's a big risk that the user accidentally ends up marking semantic 
>> meaning to their elements simply by wanting to style them.
> 
> Umm. You consider enriching the semantics of markup "by accident" a bug, 
> not a feature? Even if the author added class="copyright" for styling 
> purposes, what's the problem with telling the user agent and thereby the 
> user that there's copyright information?

It's fine if it happens to be the right semantic, sure. But it's very 
likely that they'll add that to elements that has an entierly different 
meaning, thereby adding the wrong semantic to it.

/ Jonas
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2007 02:57:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:10 GMT