- From: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:33:33 -0400
- To: tina@greytower.net
- CC: www-html@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tina Holmboe wrote: > There is /no meaning added/ by > the CSS class name. > > None. > > 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. > > Now, this might just be me misunderstanding, but I have seen quite a > few examples of this idea tossed about. We have to be very clear on > it: the way document markup languages are set up at the moment, we > agree upon semantic interpretation of structural elements, and that's > it. > > CSS doesn't enter into it, nor does attribute values. HTML covers a > hundred per cent of what it covers - there is nothing added in terms > of meaning by CSS. Ah, but class and id are NOT CSS-related. CSS can target based on them, but they are part of the markup, and technically CAN add semantic meaning. It's just at this point there is no agreed-upon method of doing so. Isn't this why role was added as well? role is supposed to allow tying an HTML tag to an RDF tuple, isn't it? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEnKR6vCLXx0V8XHQRAtIpAJ9OiuaJpH4aFEnRzVc29nPiocu5lgCZAaY4 5IMyWjdhA2aP9hdDoH4bT/I= =gsGm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Saturday, 24 June 2006 02:33:42 UTC