- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:35:35 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, mark.birbeck@x-port.net
On 2007-06-01 01:10:50 +0200 Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > On May 31, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > >> On 2007-05-31 18:41:20 +0200 Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: >> >>> Can we please take the discussion of changing CSS somewhere that it is >>> more on-topic, such as <www-style@w3.org>? >> >> 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