- From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 17:16:32 -0400
- To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "John Foliot" <foliot@wats.ca>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On 5/7/07, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > I would not be opposed to adding a 'role' attribute, as long as we also > support adding semantics the way it's done before. Such as using the > class attribute (as long as it's properly prefixed as has been suggested > before) or using new elements added to the spec. (1) Since class is officially meaningless, we it is impossible to break any officially sanctioned prior usage. People who were careful enough to consistently use a private meaning in the past will probably be careful enough to update their documents (if required) before updating the doctype. (2) That said, it would not be unreasonable to use role (or some new attribute) instead of class, simply because it hasn't already been defined as officially meaningless. (3) Using class=(previously invalid value) has the worst of both approaches. Because it is an existing attribute, there is a chance of clashes. (If only with tools that arrogantly assumed they would have full control of the class attribute.) On the other hand, since the value isn't valid today, it isn't the one people are already using. Even if the authors themselves say that the new meaning is correct, they still have to edit their document and change the value to something more obscure before they can benefit. -jJ
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 21:16:36 UTC