- From: lilley <lilley@afs.mcc.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 11:56:41 +0000 (GMT)
- To: boo@best.com (Walter Ian Kaye)
- Cc: seibert@hep.physics.mcgill.ca, glenn@stonehand.com, Bert.Bos@sophia.inria.fr, www-style@w3.org
Walter Ian Kaye said: > Why use STYLE as the name of the attribute instead of CLASS? Because it > matches the <STYLE> element in the HEAD. It makes no sense to use CLASS > instead, unless you have <CLASS> in the HEAD. In a word: Consistency. A good argument. I think that the intention was to overload class to give semantic meaning as well as formatting control. However, as the consensus seemed to be away from any list of named classes, and since a thesaurus-type system such as Murray-Rust is using for CML is unlikely to be an option for all HTML documents, it seems that CLASS will only be used for semantic markup withing focussed subject areas where application conventions can be agreed. This means that generic search engines, for example, are unlikely to offer searching based on CLASS (which was I think the original point). I guess this more limited potential usage is still enough reason to call it CLASS rather than the more specific STYLE, but I agree that the general document author is likely to find STYLE a more meaningful name. -- Chris Lilley, Technical Author and JISC representative to W3C +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Manchester and North HPC Training & Education Centre | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Computer Graphics Unit, Email: Chris.Lilley@mcc.ac.uk | | Manchester Computing Centre, Voice: +44 161 275 6045 | | Oxford Road, Manchester, UK. Fax: +44 161 275 6040 | | M13 9PL BioMOO: ChrisL | | Timezone: UTC URI: http://info.mcc.ac.uk/CGU/staff/lilley/ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Received on Thursday, 7 December 1995 06:58:13 UTC