W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2006

Re: Re: [XHTML 2.0] emphesis

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:28:06 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200606232228.k5NMS6300790@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org

>   the CSS class name.

class is not a CSS class name.  That's a common misunderstanding and
leads to class=red, as it becomes viewed as presentational.

>   Not unless you define it that way and get everyone and everything
>   supposed to interpret same to agree with you. There is no semantics in
>   class names.

It should still be a sub-classing of the semantics.  One is in a halfway
house, where the sub-classing is not universal, but in a disciplined
organisation it could well be organisation wide.  Even if it is only
site wide, it still encourages consistent styling of semantically
similar material, even though it doesn't allow machine extraction of
the actual semantics.

There are extremes, like those who would prefer to write everything in
their private XML dialect and use style sheets to make it make sense
to visual users, and those who do the same by only using span and div
and putting everything else into class and id.  However, if you take
the middle ground, you can get a good compromise between the deliberately
limited semantic richness of HTML and an optimised for the documnet level,
with generic HTML browsers still communicating quite a lot of the semantics.
Received on Friday, 23 June 2006 22:28:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:20:59 UTC