Re: 'role' should be property

On 2007-06-01 01:10:50 +0200 Maciej Stachowiak <> wrote:

> On May 31, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> On 2007-05-31 18:41:20 +0200 Maciej Stachowiak <> wrote:
>>> Can we please take the discussion of changing CSS somewhere that  it  is 
>>> more on-topic, such as <>?
>> Right. But. I don't think you are in support of the role attribute?  So if 
>> we agree that it belongs in CSS instead, then we can skip the  role debate 
>> here also?
>> Also, Dmitry says «focus on 'class'» and «do less, but add more  meaning 
>> to the little you do». I think you say the same.
> I'm personally not in favor of either the role attribute in markup,  or a 
> hypothetical role CSS property.

But then think about something more relevant for you, think about the scope and headers attributes of TABLE. Dmitry himself in of his letters use a table to illustrate his point.

In the parallell thread about the headers attribute, you raised the question about what implementations should be required to support. Well ... I am not saying that it is possible, but _if_ it were possible to move the things that scope and headers do *out* of HTML and into CSS, then suddenly it became much simpler to create HTML5 conformimg UAs, and to differentiate the UAs - they do not all have to support all CSS properties.)

I have man more points to make abotu scope and headers. I make them in the parallell thread. I'll just mention that it would be logical for headers to not only take ID's as values, but also class. 
leif halvard silli

Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 00:35:55 UTC