- From: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 00:20:40 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Rene Saarsoo <nene@triin.net>, public-html@w3.org
Jonas Sicking schrieb: > > Rene Saarsoo wrote: >> As I see, it's now the question: do we need all the advantages of >> @role although it has some additional complexites, or shall we >> settle with simpler (but maybe too simplistic) predefined classnames? > > Like I've suggested before, why not have both. That way people can use > the simple syntax of @class as long as the predefined classes we have > defined are enough, and you get all benefits of @class that you listed. > And if you want to express more complex semantics or define your own > taxonomies you can do that by using the @role attribute. > > The downside of doing this is that implementations that want to extract > the semantic meaning from a page will have to look at two attributes. > However compared to the complexities of @role, also looking at @class is > very little extra overhead. Makes sense to me. When I was arguing for @class, it was never really against @role. --Dao
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 22:20:53 UTC