Re: Predefined Class Names Solution

Philip & Le Khanh wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> James Graham wrote:
> 
>> That rather misses the point of "pave the cowpaths" though -- the idea 
>> is to preferentially spec things that have become common practice over 
>> things which have not. 
> 
> Yes, I do understand that; my problem is that whilst it is easy
> to demonstrate that there are $>n$ documents in the wild that
> use 'class="copyright"', it is infinitely harder to demonstrate
> the intention of the authors in using that construct beyond
> the two usages I gave previously (CSS & DOM).  

The intent of the author is (IMHO) not terribly relevant. What matters 
is whether their *actual* usage matches the proposed spec. If a survey 
shows that a fraction f of uses of class="copyright" do match the spec 
and f is >~ the fraction of authors who use elements such as <address> 
in line with the HTML4 spec then I don't see how speccing 
class="copyright" is a major problem from the point of view of "semantic 
compatibility".


-- 
"Instructions to follow very carefully.
Go to Tesco's.  Go to the coffee aisle.  Look at the instant coffee. 
Notice that Kenco now comes in refil packs.  Admire the tray on the 
shelf.  It's exquiste corrugated boxiness. The way how it didn't get 
crushed on its long journey from the factory. Now pick up a refil bag. 
Admire the antioxidant claim.  Gaze in awe at the environmental claims 
written on the back of the refil bag.  Start stroking it gently, its my 
packaging precious, all mine....  Be thankful that Amy has only given 
you the highlights of the reasons why that bag is so brilliant."
-- ajs

Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 14:40:55 UTC