W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2007

[whatwg] Feedback affected by the predefined classes being gone

From: Michel Fortin <michel.fortin@michelf.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:25:55 -0400
Message-ID: <259F577C-2FB5-4981-BBBF-4AD8E2816C19@michelf.com>
Le 2007-05-17 ? 1:17, Ian Hickson a ?crit :

> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Michel Fortin wrote:
>>
>> I think it'd be useful to have that on rel values (link types) as  
>> well.
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Michel Fortin wrote:
>>
>> The rel attribute is about links. What I meant by that is that I  
>> think
>> it would be useful to have a private domain for link types too. It  
>> would
>> work a little differently than on class though, because the  
>> current spec
>> disallows unregistered link types while it allows unregistered class
>> names. My proposal would be to allow unregistered link types if they
>> start with a dash "-".
>
> What's the advantage of allowing this, given that authors can  
> already use
> class="" on links?

Given that predefined classes are no longer with us (something I  
can't decide if it's a good thing or not), and given that this  
proposal was in extension of a similar one about class that no longer  
apply, I'm don't think it's worth pursuing anymore. The basic idea  
was for consistency of rel with a proposed rule for class names, and  
it has just fallen apart.

It's true that authors can always use class. The thing is that a  
class name describe the nature of the content, while rel describe the  
nature of the link. Someone may want to use rel to be more specific,  
to mean that the term applies to the linked document.

So, a part of my reasoning was this: if you disallow completely  
private values, those who want to have their own anyway will opt to  
use whatever they like, possibly creating conflicting values for  
later standards. If you allow private values at the condition that  
they be distinctive, such people have a future-proof way of choosing  
names, which gives them a reason to follow the rules and diminish the  
risk of conflict.

In practice however, using either class or rel is going to be mostly  
the same. I don't have any practical example where one would be  
better than the other. I think, for now at least, that things are  
good as they are and that my porposal should be abandoned.


Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://www.michelf.com/
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 08:25:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:55 UTC