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

Re: Predefined Class Names Solution

From: Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 12:32:05 -0400
Message-ID: <dbdb69c90705070932k4b03f8b3na2f2dc7e3e546ffe@mail.gmail.com>
To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
Cc: public-html@w3.org, "W3C HTML Mailing List" <www-html@w3.org>

On 5/7/07, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net> wrote:
< (long) snip >
> In my view, there are two ways to get out of this bind. The first is
> to use a new attribute that does what it says--provide metadata about
> the purpose of an element. The second is to allow @class values that
> are extremely unlikely to have occurred in the past, perhaps by using
> a fixed prefix such as '_', or any prefix, followed by a fixed
> separator, such as ':'. That would resolve the ambiguity in class
> names, but also allow @class to still play its current role of having
> no universal meaning.
>
> As it happens, in future versions of HTML and XHTML I favour using
> both, to meet different use cases.



FWIW.. :)

Can't imagine yet another attribute, but that almost is how it feels
this would go.. Was a viable thought that came to mind after the fact
of my own inquiry/2-cents yesterday.. /Seems/ like someone else might
have at least alluded to the same early on..

The idea of a [pre-character] otherwise not "allowed" in pre-existing
attributes sure sounds attractive..

Best wishes.. :)

Cindy

- :: -
http://CindySueCausey.blogspot.com
http://AdvocatesCalendar.blogspot.com
Georgia Voices That Count, 2005
Talking Rock, GA, USA
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 16:32:11 GMT

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