Re: Use the role-attribute instead of predefined class names

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 -

Received on Monday, 9 April 2007 09:24:00 UTC