- From: Keith Alexander <k.j.w.alexander@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:33:24 +0100
- To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
- Cc: "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
This may be late in the day to say this, but I liked @class. It makes it easier to do 'semantic css', which means less bloated markup - which is easier to write and maintain. I think it is a good move to make RDFa enable 'really semantic' class names for CSS and javascripts (libraries like jQuery make it convenient to use classnames as hooks by mimicking the css syntax) to hook into. I think it would be easier to sell RDFa the more you can co-ordinate it with current practice. With @class, I can mark up my content with RDFa, and already have a bunch of classnames to style. Otherwise, I have to go back to the markup and add lots of classnames, which will be saying much the same thing as the @instanceof. In a way, it's penalising people who want to use semantic hooks for css, because they have to describe everything twice. Even when web designers can rely upon browsers supporting attribute selectors, the classname syntax is still more convenient (even if one has to escape the colon in RDFa-style classnames). Personally, I don't think there is a huge conceptual problem with whether the @class is describing the element or the resource the element represents. You could see it as: the div has the classification 'foaf:Person' (understood as a literal), and the resource has the classification 'http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/Person' (the uri represented by 'foaf:Person'). Failing @class, I'd vote for something as transparent as possible, like @rdftype Cheers Keith
Received on Friday, 20 July 2007 11:12:36 UTC