- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:52:30 -0400
- To: "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On 7/17/07, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote: > Mark Baker wrote: > > > > On 7/17/07, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote: > >> So inventing *two* new things, i.e. a new attribute and a new element, > >> is superior than simply using @profile as it stands in the header in > >> HTML 4 and *maybe* expanding it to work off an existing class element? > > > > Yes, I believe so. I'm all for extending existing mechanisms when the > > extension won't break backwards compatibility (i.e. where existing > > clients won't misinterpret the meaning of the document). But the > > change you're suggesting would confuse them, as I believe I > > demonstrated with my last example. > I have to disagree respectfully. What precisely is confusing with the > last example and how does it break backward compatibility? Here's the document snippets which demonstrate the backwards incompatibility; existing software treats them as semantically equivalent when they're not. <div class="employee" profile="http://example.org/human-resources/"> <div class="employee" profile="http://example.org/foo/bar/"> > Perhaps I am missing something, but I find introducing new elements and > attributes with the same semantics and behavior as previously defined > elements confusing. Granted, it will be confusing to some authors. But I'd rather have some confusion than break backwards compatibility. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 13:53:41 UTC