- From: Scott E. Preece <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 15:58:40 -0500
- To: ctaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil
- CC: www-html@w3.org
From: Charles Peyton Taylor <ctaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil> | | But I thought the reason for CLASS sets in the first place was | to specify *special*, author-defined instances of content that | aren't separate elements. | | If you are going to standardize a class as a specific content type | I don't see why you shouldn't just make it an element. It would be easier | for the author writing the document; perhaps it would be easier | on the parsers as well. | | I think that maybe <link> relations should be standardized, but | not classes. --- If classes are going to be useful (by which I mean if they are going to leaed to reusable stylesheets), they need to be standardized. The scope of the standard determines the useful scope of reusability of the stylesheet (a continuum from totally non-reusable-even-by-the-author to reusable by any author). I think we will get de facto standard stylesheets courtesy of the major UA vendors in pretty short order. Further, if classes are to be used to convey semantic information that is useful to tools (such as indexers), they must be standardized or the information the classes encode is unusable. My own take on this is that we need a much larger standard set of elements and we need an effective social mechanism for getting new elements standardized quickly. scott -- scott preece motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801 phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550 internet mail: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 1996 16:56:28 UTC