- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 10:53:07 -0700
- To: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
- Cc: 'Dan Connolly' <connolly@w3.org>, 'Anne van Kesteren' <annevk@opera.com>, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
John Foliot wrote: > Dan Connolly wrote: >> I haven't followed the whole @class/@role discussion here very well, >> so at the risk of throwing in a total red herring... >> >> I have been mostly over in the Semantic Web land, happily using XHTML >> 1.x for the last few years, sort of ignoring the fact that most >> people don't quote their attributes nor balance their tags, and using >> tidy to make up the difference when necessary. > > And sum reely kewl kids spel funny, or talk in SMS - IYKWIM, AFAIK U cn 2... > > That doesn't help a lot of us, and I'm not really sure what it brings to > this discussion Personally I'm very interested in how people use HTML4 today, because I think largely they are going to keep using HTML5 the same way. If we propose something that goes against what people are doing today, I suspect it won't be used nearly as much as if we suggest something that aids and enhances their current use practices. Granted, that is just a hunch and I might be wrong. I would not be opposed to adding a 'role' attribute, as long as we also support adding semantics the way it's done before. Such as using the class attribute (as long as it's properly prefixed as has been suggested before) or using new elements added to the spec. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 17:53:16 UTC