- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:21:55 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:10:04 -0700, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > > What's the use case for this attribute given that there's a class=""
> > > attribute already which allows basically the same.
> >
> > It's easier to set a separate attribute than it is to edit the class
> > attribute.
>
> I thought this would be the answer and I tend to disagree. If it's hard
> to edit the class attribute we should just make that easier by having
> .className.add("foo") etc.
We'll do that too, but where's the harm in having this attribute? There's
zero requirements on UAs, it just allows authors to do more.
I actually was considering just saying that any attribute is allowed, but
that seemed more dangerous.
I've been using state="" a lot in XBL1+SVG documents. I use it for things
like where a switch has three states, and one of the elements in the
shadow tree needs to have those states. Then I key CSS off it, without
having to worry about the class attribute, which is used for separate
things (like UI state).
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 14 August 2006 23:22:04 UTC