- From: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:14:05 +0200
- To: Chris Adams <chris@tuesdaybegins.com>
- CC: Jack Sleight <jack.sleight@gmail.com>, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, Charles Ying <charles.ying@gmail.com>, Maurice Carey <maurice@thymeonline.com>, HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
The discussion is about defining semantics for certain classes, which is utterly unrelated to default style sheets. --Dao Chris Adams schrieb: > Forgive my ignorance: but isn't this entire issue a moot point anyway > and be better left to discussion in the CSS circles? > > having the class attribute is really as far as HTML needs to go, at that > point the CSS engine does what it will with the rules defined in the > stylesheet. > > So if the CSS engine defines defaults for class names that is wonderful > but not really a task left up for the HTML folks. > > -C > > > On 5/17/07, * Jack Sleight* <jack.sleight@gmail.com > <mailto:jack.sleight@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > and/or the author may have trusted our promise that class names are > > not supposed to mean anything > Ah yes, well that is exactly why I have concerns about the inclusion of > pre-defined class names at all. > > Gervase Markham wrote: > > Jack Sleight wrote: > >> Ending underscores are fine, but do we really need a prefix or > suffix > >> at all? I may have missed some of the conversation on this, > > > > Just a little bit :-) > > > >> but what's wrong with just "copyright"? > > > > In summary: some people think that this is a bad idea because this > > class name (and other undecorated ones) may already be in use on the > > web with semantics different from those which we propose to apply, > > and/or the author may have trusted our promise that class names are > > not supposed to mean anything. > > > > Gerv > > > > -- > Jack > > > > > -- > Chris@tuesdaybegins.com <mailto:Chris@tuesdaybegins.com> > http://www.tuesdaybegins.com
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 13:14:26 UTC