- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 19:21:15 +1000
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>, www-html@w3.org
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > If we follow the draft we actually find that the burden of explaining > what real practical problems can occur is on the proponents of the idea, The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim. The claim is that predefined classes create real, practical problems. Prove it! Some of the classes were chosen because they are widely used. We have statistics to show that, for example, copyright is the 9th most widely used value. What is the problem with using assigning a definition that is compatible with the dictionary definition of the term? http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/classes.html > Finding out about this would have been a simple 10 seconds web search > for you; you either did this but chose not to tell us about it, or you did not > do it. Clearly neither would add credibility to your argument. I haven't made any arguments for or against predefined classes. I'm only asking those who are objecting, to more clearly make their case and back it up with evidence. > [...] but after http-equiv=Content-Type > being made invalid I fully expect even the most outrageous nonsense > to come out of the "WHATWG", so, who knows. Care to elaborate on this? What is the real problem created by forbidding that value, given that <meta charset="UTF-8"> has been provided as a working alternative for conforming documents? Is it just because it's already widely used, and you consider forcing authors to change to the new shorter version a problem? In the past, before <meta chaset=""> was added, the spec did make this conforming: <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=X"> Although most of that is just useless boilerplate code, I'd be ok with making it conforming in addition to the <meta charset="">. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 09:21:23 UTC