Re: Getting beyond the ping pong match (was RE: Cleaning House)

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