- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 22:22:45 -0700
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Leif Halvard Silli > <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: >>> Microdata or the class="" attribute can both be used to annotate HTML >>> elements with more specific semantics than their native semantics >>> provide. >> >> If - say - AT software is supposed to recognize something as a dialog, then >> neither of those a likely to be enough. > > I'm personally not at all a fan of using class to add semantics. I > think the class attribute namespace should belong to authors. That is > why I was arguing for the removal of predefined class values back when > they were in the HTML5 drafts. > > However I don't see why something like a microformat or RDFa wouldn't > be an acceptable way to expose something to AT software. Once that > microformat or RDFa vocabulary has become popular enough that it gains > some sort of critical mass that is. Arg, that should have said "Once that microdata format or RDFa vocabulary has become..". I am a big fan of microformats, however I don't like that they many times use the class attribute. However I understand that they chose to do that given what "hooks" that HTML4 provided. That's why I'm a fan of microdata in HTML5 as it provides better hooks. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 05:23:45 UTC