Re: Gilman-4

[disposition rejected; fresh comment/complaint lodged against the corresponding
text of the current draft.]

Note:  This is an editorial, or expository comment; it does not bear 
on conformance.

However, you misunderstood the comment in lumping it under WAI-2, and
the problem is still there in the current spec draft, viz.:

<quote
cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-cselection-20061010/#id2271490">
This variable holds the name of the CSS style class used to provide
styling definitions for the user experience.
</quote>

This language is highly offensive.

The 'class' attribute, used right,

- *is* used to key styling decisions
- *is not* used to provide styling definitions

Styles and classes, used right, are not one-to-one.

In WAI-2 you did address the issue of "use content categories, not
styling categories as 'class' categories." Here it is not a question
of the terms the [host-language document instance] author uses in the
'class' attribute but the colloquial language used to misname the
'class' attribute. Just say " the 'class' attribute" and don't say
"the CSS style class" and this expository fault will be fixed. This terminology
is in the spec and you control it. The class tokens authors use
is on the other hand a matter out of your control.

Al


At 11:15 AM +0000 1/4/06, Roland Merrick wrote:
>Greetings Al, thanks for your comments on the content selection last 
>call [1]. As part of this you include 
>"<http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-cselection-20050502/#error-events>Reword 
>to eliminate "CSS class" terminology".
>
>The DIWG assigned this comment the identifier Gilman-4
>
>This mail documents DIWG's response to your comments.
>
>DIWG Response
>=============
>
>We agree that this is a valid comment, but we believe that it is the 
>same issue as WAI-2 and we deal with it under that identifier. 
>Declining it here does not imply that we do not accept the comment, 
>merely that we believe it to duplicate another comment.
>
>[1] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-diselect-editors/2005AprJun/0012.html
>
>Regards, Roland

Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 04:36:46 UTC