Re: Predefined Class Names Solution

On 5/7/07, Mark Birbeck <> 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.. :)


- :: -
Georgia Voices That Count, 2005
Talking Rock, GA, USA

Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 16:32:07 UTC