- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 23:30:32 +0300 (EEST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
- cc: public-html@w3.org
On Fri, 4 May 2007, Dão Gottwald wrote: > 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? When an author used class="copyright" for whatever reason (styling, scripting, documentation), we have no right to infer that he meant semantics specified for this attribute years later in a draft. (For example, in my page about intellectual rights, I may well have marked parts _discussing_ copyright issues with such an attribute, with no intent of saying that they contain information relating to the copyright to the page itself.) Considering all the proposed predefined class names, the possibility of clashes is very real. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2007 20:30:43 UTC