- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 02:14:52 -0700
- To: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Gervase Markham wrote:
> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> The only thing that can be done to help this problem (other than by
>> using the role attribute) is to use really obscure names for predefined
>> classes, which doesn't seem like a great idea either.
>
> Or have a known prefix, currently unused (either because the standard
> doesn't allow one of the characters, or by general practice). It's
> potentially a little ugly, but it allows the rest of the name to be
> meaningful.
>
> One possible suitable prefix would be the underscore _.
Yup, Maciej suggested the same thing. I sort of like the '_' prefix
since it's the same as used for targets (i.e. _blank, _parent etc). It's
also easy to match in CSS;
._copyright { ... }
/ Jonas
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 09:17:34 UTC