- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 01:51:12 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Rijk van Geijtenbeek <rijk@iname.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Rijk van Geijtenbeek wrote: > > For HTML, any attribute that is not in the following list should be > > considered presentational: [...] > > If you write the other list, it would be shorter: The idea was to set the default to be presentational, since so many attributes are non-standard, and all the non-standard ones are presentational. > I wonder why alink and vlink are presentational, but text and link are > not. Especially as background and bgcolor are presentational. Oversight. Good catch, thanks. > I also question the inclusion of 'span' and 'start' in the > presentational list. One could also argue about 'size' when applied to > the select element. The list was designed to put as much as possible into the presentational list. Start was taken out of HTML strict, so it seems definitely presentational. I could see an argument for the cell spanning attributes, but as they map directly to proposed CSS3 properties... *shrug* > > For XHTML and other XML languages, no attribute should be considered > > presentational. > > I assume this has something to do with the discouragement of these > attributes in the long run, but some clarification would be nice. Yep, as I said in my message earlier: | ...the intention is to discourage the use of presentational markup on | the long run. This proposal attempts to balance the need to allow | legacy content to continue to interact correctly with user stylesheets | while discouraging the use of presentational markup in the future. -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL "meow" /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 21:51:15 UTC