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

Re: predefined class names (was Getting beyond the ping pong match)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 01:07:26 -0700
Message-Id: <04AE3E3D-4A34-4DC0-B4CA-FAF4194218E6@apple.com>
Cc: www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>

On May 6, 2007, at 12:31 AM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

> At 15:54 +1000 UTC, on 2007-05-06, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> [supposedly Jukka wrote:]
>>>>> (For example, in my page about intellectual rights, I may well  
>>>>> have
>>>>> marked parts _discussing_ copyright issues with such an attribute,
> [...]
>> you presented a completely hypothetical example without any evidence
>> to show that it actually happens in reality.
>> It would really help if the people who are objecting to the  
>> predefined
>> class names could find real world evidence to support their claims of
>> clashes, and explain precisely what real practical problems can occur
>> from it.
> I looked at the first 20 results of
> <http://www.google.com/search?q=%22class=copyright%22>. Three of them
> contained actual results: <http://www.csmrobotics.com/ 
> copyright.html> and
> <http://cars.uk.msn.com/Photo_Gallery/photogallery.aspx?cp- 
> documentid=477037>
> seem to use it more or less as Web Apps 1.0 currently defines it. But
> <http://www.munchfonts.com/HTML/additional.html> appears to be  
> exactly what
> Jukka suggested might be out there.

This searches for the words "class" and "copyright" so it is probably  
predisposed to find demo examples rather than real use. Note also  
that the example you cited uses class="copyright" in accordance with  
Web Apps 1.0's definition at the bottom of the page for the copyright  
notice, in addition to using it in a demo of how one might style  
something by class. I don't think developer tutorials make very  
compelling counter-examples.

> However, given that the Web allegedly consists of billions of  
> dopcuments,
> what do a few such cases mean? Surely this isn't thorough enough  
> material to
> base a spec on, no matter which side of this particular sub-debate  
> you're on.

I agree it's good to do more thorough research on proposed use of  
predefined class names.

Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 08:07:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:16 UTC