- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 09:11:48 +0200
- To: nir dagan <dagan@upf.es>
- cc: jongund@staff.uiuc.edu, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> >
> > So the consensus is that class is really better than rel and we pick
> > something like "wai-dlink" as a reserved class name?
> > Jon
> >
>
> IMHO, the Dardailler-Ragget correspondence did not address specifically
> the notion of "reserved class name" to be used by user agents.
What do you mean exactly ?
To me, the reservation comes with the added wai- prefix.
> Actually, Ragget suggested that he wouldn't stick to an identical
> interpretation of rel for LINK and A. Taking Ragget (and not the spec.)
> as the expert on the meaning of rel, it seems that rel is better since
> "conventions" on the meaning of its value are recognized (also
> by the spec.)
I'd still maintain that CSS1 support i.e. begin able to do
.wai-dlink { display: none }
(which you can only do is class=wai-dlink is used)
is more important than more focus semantics of rel vs. class.
Received on Friday, 5 June 1998 03:11:47 UTC