W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2003

Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful

From: John Lewis <lewi0371@mrs.umn.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:26:52 -0600
Message-ID: <144449941271.20030116152652@cda.mrs.umn.edu>
To: www-html@w3.org

Philip wrote on Thursday, January 16, 2003 at 1:23:42 PM:

> fantasai wrote:

>> Of course I can do that. But my *point* is that once "special" was
>> used for the green paragraph, it could not be used for the pencil
>> box description. It applies equally to using "green". If I use
>> "green" for the green paragraph, I cannot use "green" for the
>> pencil box description.

> This really is a ridiculous display of naivety : the creation of
> class names requires a reasonable degree of inventiveness if they
> are to be inherently meaningful -- just because you can think of
> only "green" and "special" as being appropriate says nothing about
> HTML (the topic of the list) or even about CSS (which is actually
> what is being discussed) but says a lot about your own linguistic
> limitations ...

I'm glad this list has maintained its level of maturity. The point
isn't how many class names are available. The point is how many times
you may use each class name to mean a certain thing in a certain
document, compared to how many times you may use each class name to
mean a certain thing in many documents. The answer is once in the
first case and "how ever many documents you have" in the second. Do
you see the potential problem now?

Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 16:27:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:20:48 UTC