- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:34:29 +0300 (EEST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
- cc: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Nicholas Shanks wrote: > Anti-@class-overloading bovines unite! Yeah, we have nothing to lose but our chains! > Lets get @role used so we can bridge the schism between purists and the > blithe. An attribute named "role" might be quite adequate in TML, Theatrical Markup Language. I know that it's difficult to find a name for something that is really a "class" or "type" attribute with a predefined set of values, since "class" is already in use, with a name space left to authors, and "type" is in use for many elements in widely varying meanings. This suggests that HTML should be redesigned rather than patched and extended. But if you wish to create an eclectic language that looks sufficiently like classic HTML to be consumable (somehow) by existsing browsers, then "kind" might be a better attribute name than "role" (for an attribute that is really a set of _elements_ in disguise). -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2007 05:34:41 UTC