- 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