- From: Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 12:32:05 -0400
- To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, "W3C HTML Mailing List" <www-html@w3.org>
On 5/7/07, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net> wrote: < (long) snip > > In my view, there are two ways to get out of this bind. The first is > to use a new attribute that does what it says--provide metadata about > the purpose of an element. The second is to allow @class values that > are extremely unlikely to have occurred in the past, perhaps by using > a fixed prefix such as '_', or any prefix, followed by a fixed > separator, such as ':'. That would resolve the ambiguity in class > names, but also allow @class to still play its current role of having > no universal meaning. > > As it happens, in future versions of HTML and XHTML I favour using > both, to meet different use cases. FWIW.. :) Can't imagine yet another attribute, but that almost is how it feels this would go.. Was a viable thought that came to mind after the fact of my own inquiry/2-cents yesterday.. /Seems/ like someone else might have at least alluded to the same early on.. The idea of a [pre-character] otherwise not "allowed" in pre-existing attributes sure sounds attractive.. Best wishes.. :) Cindy - :: - http://CindySueCausey.blogspot.com http://AdvocatesCalendar.blogspot.com Georgia Voices That Count, 2005 Talking Rock, GA, USA
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 16:32:07 UTC