- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 21:53:05 +0300 (EEST)
- To: public-html@w3.org
- cc: www-html@w3.org
On Mon, 7 May 2007, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Of those 58, 46 sites used class="copyright" only for elements that actually > did contain copyright information in the markup. Even if we consider those figures as real, that would mean 12 out of 58 sites that use class="copyright" for elements that do not contain copyright information _at all_. Counting by sites and not pages is somewhat questionable, and we might have different views on the concept of "copyright information". If you are especially looking for examples on using class="copyright" for copyright information, you will probably find more examples than you would if you looked for counterexamples. But let's not go into such details. What matters more is that many, or most, of your "positive" examples contain _mixed_ information, where copyright information (or something you count as that) is just a part, maybe a small part. If you count these as positive arguments, you could just as well count <body class="copyright"> when you find it. > I never claimed that there were no sites that misused the value. This is not a matter of misuse. Since class="copyright" has absolutely no other meaning in HTML as currently defined than assigning the class name "copyright" (which is just a name and could equally well be "foobar"), the very concept of misuse would be wrong. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 18:53:11 UTC