Re: Applicable elements for predefined classnames

On 5/9/07, Rene Saarsoo <nene@triin.net> wrote:
>
> Matthew Raymond wrote:
> > Note that |role| is not immune to the problem of naming conflicts.
> >
> >    Because new "roles" may be added in future HTML specifications,
> > earlier user agents will have to ignore unidentified roles so that they
> > can preserve graceful degradation for future HTML specs. Thus, people
> > may start using roles that are undefined for a given namespace (or use
> > undefined roles without namespaces). This is especially true of clueless
> > web authors who don't necessarily understand what |role| is:
>
> 1. If authors use their own arbitrary values with @class,
>     then this is absolutely correct use of @class.
>
> 2. When authors use their own arbitrary values with @role,
>     then this will NOT be the correct use of @role.
>
> Similarly authors can make up their own element <foo>, which
> might be assigned a meaning in some future spec of HTML.
> But usually there is no benefit in making up your own elements,
> and people rarely do it. Similarly do they rarely come up with new
> values for other attributes with predefined sets of values.
> Why should it be the case with @role?

I totaly agree rene : the former HTML specs never warned authors about
predefined classes. But HTML 5 spec will have to include a big red
shinny warn about misuse of role (and some other property), and will
also have to be very clear about the way it's used and the way to add
a role value to the spec.

-- 
Olivier G.
http://www.lespacedunmatin.info/blog/

Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2007 15:39:17 UTC