- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:33:26 +0200
- To: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
- CC: 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Justin James wrote: > ... > If the URI/URN (or whatever UR*) class names are not being de-referenced, > then who *cares* if there could be a clash somewhere? It is irrelevant, so > long as the CSS tree for the current document does not have any clashes. And > if it were, who cares? Because CSS handles multiple definitions just fine, > the one "closer" to the tag (externally defined, then internally defined, > then inline style) overrides indentical attributes while allowing > non-identical attributes to inherit up. > > So I really am not sure why you guys are so worried about clashing class > names, it seems like a non-problem to me. Am I missing something? > ... I was responding to the proposal of using class names as extension points, putting semantics into the document (as a workaround for HTML's missing extensibility). In that case, the class name itself provides information (and its use in CSS is irrelevant). So a potential collision of names would confuse the recipient, who's expected to extract information out of the presence of the class name. >> - the spec to give rules for the formats of these names, so clashes are >> avoided (if you use a URI, use one you have authority over), and > > This concept of mandating that the HTML author have "authority" over a > URI/URN that they are using as a class name is not working for me. This is > the second time that you've mentioned it, but I really do not understand: > > * How do you want to define "having authority over"? For resolvable URIs: the ability to put content there. For non-resolvable URIs it's harder to define and depends on the scheme. > * How do you handle someone importing a CSS stylesheet from a URI that they > do *not* "have authority over*, such as is the case when using a public > widget library? How is that a problem? > Sorry to just jump into the middle of this conversation like this... BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 14:34:13 UTC