- From: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 23:18:22 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>, 'Lachlan Hunt' <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, tina@greytower.net, "'Patrick H.Lauke'" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org
Jonas Sicking schrieb: > > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> On May 4, 2007, at 9:30 AM, John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote: >>> One of the most exciting (to me) developments in the XHTML camp is the >>> emergence of the ROLE attribute - as it now provides a means of >>> "explaining" >>> what something is or does... To quote the W3C spec: >>> "The role attribute takes as its value one or more white-space separated >>> QNames. The attribute describes the role(s) the current element plays >>> in the >>> context of the document. <snip> It could also be used as a mechanism for >>> annotating portions of a document in a domain specific way (e.g., a >>> legal >>> term taxonomy)." >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-role/#s_role_module_attributes >> >> The purpose of the "role" attribute is addressed in HTML5 by the >> "class" attribute, along with predefined classes. > > Personally I think this was a very poor decision. The problem is that > you have user names and standard names mixed in the same namespace. So > there's a big risk that the user accidentally ends up marking semantic > meaning to their elements simply by wanting to style them. Umm. You consider enriching the semantics of markup "by accident" a bug, not a feature? Even if the author added class="copyright" for styling purposes, what's the problem with telling the user agent and thereby the user that there's copyright information? --Dao
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 21:18:28 UTC