W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2006

[whatwg] HTML syntax: shortcuts for 'id' and 'class' attributes

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:28:35 -0800
Message-ID: <004b01c714e8$058ec7c0$db02000a@internal.toppro.net>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David H?s?ther" <hasather@gmail.com>
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news at terrainformatica.com>
Cc: "WHAT Working Group Mailing List" <whatwg at whatwg.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] HTML syntax: shortcuts for 'id' and 'class' attributes


| (Accidently only sent the first mail to Andrew).
|
| On 12/1/06, Andrew Fedoniouk <news at terrainformatica.com> wrote:
| > While we are on the subject of discussing HTML syntax....
| >
| > How about following (wild) idea?
| >
| > To allow following notation (borrowed from CSS selectors):
| >
| > <p.myclass>...</p> is equivalent of
| > <p class="myclass">...</p>
| >
| > <p#myid>...</p> is equivalent of
| > <p id="myid">...</p>
| >
| > <p.myclass1.myclass2>...</p> is equivalent of
| > <p class="myclass1 myclass2">...</p>
| >
| > <p#myid.myclass1.myclass2>...</p> is equivalent of
| > <p id="myid" class="myclass1 myclass2">...</p>
| >
| > It is syntax sugar of course but at least it will reduce amount of data
| > needs to be sent over the wire.
|
| HTML5 is meant to be backwards compatible, so this is out of the question.

And where do you see problems with backward compatibility?
Or let's put this way: what would be a definition of backward compatibility in 
terms of HTML5?

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainfromatica.com


|
| -- 
| David H?s?ther
| 
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 17:28:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:30 UTC