- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:02:49 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> That being said, MANY people deal just fine with prefix-based >> indirection, and at least one indirection mechanisms we already >> have in >> HTML (class names -> CSS) is *far* more complicated. > > Class names and CSS are also a source of great author confusion. Class names as CSS selectors are somewhat confusing to authors, but in my experience less so than namespace prefixes. I think there are a few reasons: (1) indirectly binding style is less surprising to people's expectations than indirectly binding meaning/identity, since the indirection links two separate things rather than modifying meaning; (2) it's harder to make the mistake where you think the class name for actually *is* the style, than to make the mistake where you think the prefix *is* the namespace, in fact I have not heard of anyone making this particular mistake; (3) the effects of incorrect style binding are likely to be more immediately visible in the context where they are authored; (4) the binding rules of CSS are simpler and so less likely to lead to unnoticed copy/paste errors in markup. Regards, Maciej
Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 00:03:30 UTC