W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2007

Re: [RDFa] The CLASS attribute

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:50:08 +0100
Message-ID: <45D33DC0.9080506@w3.org>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Cc: Simone Onofri <simone.onofri@gmail.com>, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, www-qa@w3.org

you are absolutely right process wise. I shut up.:-)


Ben Adida wrote:
> Simone, Ivan, Steven,
> I don't want to shut down discussion, but as Chair I have to make an
> important point: the CLASS vs. ROLE decision is one that we already made
> as a group, with many discussions and many telecons. If we want to make
> progress, we need to have some deference for decisions already made
> unless there is a very good reason to overturn them. So far, I'm not
> seeing a good reason to overturn a decision, only a reason to bound it
> (triple bloat).
> Right now, the discussion is headed in the direction of "let's put
> everything back on the table." We have to be extremely wary of this
> approach. It means we have to put a hold on the Primer yet again. It
> means any question raised sends us back to the drawing board when a
> small fix might do the trick.
> After we agreed on CLASS, I spent hours correcting this issue with other
> groups (who saw my use of ROLE in an earlier Primer draft). Changing it
> back would be a huge cost again. We must realize that such a change
> would bear a huge cost, and for what benefit?
> To address specific points:
>>So, Using class with semantic meaning, this overload the current use
>>of @class.
> It's actually not overloading: Mark has explained very well how CLASS
> was meant for semantics [1], and then CSS used that as a hook for style.
> CLASS is not about style, though it can be used for style.
>>So, if we use on a single page also more dialects we can have:
>>... class="mystile first-dialect second-dialect" ...
>>and this is not clear also for humans and create more confusion also
>>for machines.
> If we go with namespaced classes, it actually looks quite clear to me.
> Seems like a matter of taste on this front.
>>It's a good idea use only "namespaced" class but if we can use a
>>specific @attribute for semantic layes, this should be the best
> New attributes should be used sparingly. HTML already has attributes and
> elements that provide semantics: LINK, META, REL, REV, and CLASS.
> Inventing some new attributes is causing us great pain with folks who
> don't like HTML extensibility. At the very least, we should be minimal
> in our approach and consider each new attribute carefully.
> -Ben
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Dec/0018


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2007 16:50:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:49 UTC