Re: Research for class="copyright"

This is interesting. If it's really that bad, it would be difficult to 
use class="copyright" with navigational tools. Maybe WHATWG needs to 
reconsider the utility of the profile attribute. From what I remember, 
profile was dumped largely because microformat parsers don't need them 
and authors often fail to use profile. But common microformats like 
hAtom and hCard have complex structures that make them easy to 
recognize. This isn't true of single class names.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 7 May 2007, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> 
>> http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/misc/copyright.html
>>
>> A quick review of the results shows that the majority of them are 
>> using class="copyright" for actual copyright notices.
> 
> IE 7 refuses to display the page and tells that I might need some add-on 
> to view it. This doesn't make a good impression if you are making an 
> argument about WWW authoring.
> 
> Anyway, the first example there has <span class="CopyrightText">, so 
> it's irrelevant in this discussion.
> 
> Next we have
> 
> <td class="copyright">  © 2007 Radisson Hotels &amp; Resorts. All Rights 
> Reserved. <a 
> href="/sectiontemplate.do?sidemenu=privacy.sidemenus§ion=privacy.home">Privacy</a> 
> <a 
> href="/sectiontemplate.do?sidemenu=termsandconditions.sidemenus§ion=terms.home">Terms 
> &amp; Conditions</a>  <a href="/rad/html/sitemap.html">Site Map</a>  </td>
> 
> which is an example _against_ your point, since the content of the 
> element class="copyright" is _not_ copyright information but mixed 
> information, including a copyright notice as a part.
> 
> A bit later we have:
> 
> <p class="copyright"> FREE MONTH OFFER ONLY ON $24.99
>    UNLIMITED  RESIDENTIAL PLAN. NEW SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.
> 
> etc.
> 
> And we have
> 
> <p class="copyright">  </p>
> 
> as well as
> 
> <span class="copyright"><a 
> href="http://www.themeatrix.com/about/filmfests.html"> and 
> more...</a></span>
> 
> This is actually worse than I expected. I wonder why you presented this 
> evidence, since it clearly speaks against your point. I think there is 
> no need for more witnesses, and I rest my case.
>

Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 17:52:31 UTC