- From: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 05:23:41 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
Matthew Raymond wrote: > Laurens Holst wrote: > >> Matthew Raymond schreef: >> >>> Laurens Holst wrote: >>> >>>> In case of <section>, the advantage is in my opinion that instead of the >>>> fact that it’s a section being implicit (like in <article>, <nav>, etc), >>>> it’s good to have it explicitly being a section, and then specify the >>>> type of section on the role attribute, as a means of sub-classing it. >>>> >>>> >>> First of all, an element specific attribute makes just as much sense >>> in this case because you don't necessarily want "section types" defined >>> on other elements. >>> >> I agree. The predefined classes are also different per element, doing >> effectively this, and I would also see the ‘role’ attribute like so. >> However, I think it makes sense to generically name this attribute >> ‘role’ throughout the specification, and not to trying to create a >> differently named attribute where they effectively are doing the same >> thing. E.g. like ‘type’ is also an attribute used in more than one >> location… Although that may be a bad example, given that it’s not >> consistently used for the same kind of thing :), sometimes a MIME type >> and sometimes an input type, etc. >> > > Having |role| on all elements suggests a global attribute where all > values work on all elements. People will get confused. It's unavoidable. > Why will consistency cause confusion? -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us
Received on Monday, 9 April 2007 09:24:00 UTC