- From: <chukharev@mail.ru>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 23:37:36 +0300
- To: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
- Cc: "www-validator@w3.org" <www-validator@w3.org>
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:51:22 +0300, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: > Is not easy, Vladimir, since it is not really a question of language > (your English is absolutely fine). It's more really about a way Thanks. > of thinking : if you use a class name in an HTML file, then does > that class really exist ? I would answer "yes", but I think that I would say the class is declared. Some languages use the term 'defined', some 'constructed' for what is needed before a declared thing (object, variable, class...) starts to exist. And if a thing is used when it does not exist, a default way of creating it (after looking in the external places) is performed. Why do you dislike this kind of terminology? > you might answer "no, unless there is some other place that the > class name occurs". In that case, I think the best name for it > would be a "unique" class name : one that occurs in one place and > one place only. Is that the idea that you want to convey ? No. I really want to distinguish the defined/constructed classes (plus preexisting classes like p) from the names used accidentally due to typing errors. The definition might be in a different linked file. Consider something like the following with the definition in the same file. ... <style type="text/css"> physicists chemists {...} </style> ... <span class="physicist">Albert Einstein</span> ... <span class="chemist">Dmitry Mendeleev</span> ... <span class="physisists">Christiaan Huygens</span> ... <span class="physicists">J.J. Thomson</span> ... <span class="physisists">Niels Bohr</span> ... ... class="physisists" is not unique but is in err. Therefore "unique" is not a good choice for the term. IMHO. YMMV. > ** Phil. > -------- -- Vladimir Chukharev Tampere University of Technology
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 20:38:13 UTC