IE9.js
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Scott Sauyet on 2 Apr 2010 13:22 David Mark wrote: > Scott Sauyet wrote: >> David Mark wrote: >> I've just re-read this entire thread, and I've seen nothing that >> offers a good reason why to be more restrictive than the spec's >> definition, which allows the class attribute to be used for "general >> purpose processing by user agents." > > But see the comment above (two posts back?) That's what I was referring > to. In other words, some (including me) are saying it doesn't natter > what the specs say (or don't say). Whether or not the specs are relevant, there is still no argument presented for the point in question: Why should we not use the "class" attribute for non-CSS purposes? -- Scott
From: "Michael Haufe ("TNO")" on 2 Apr 2010 13:27 On Apr 2, 10:40 am, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I've just re-read this entire thread, and I've seen nothing that > offers a good reason why to be more restrictive than the spec's > definition, which allows the class attribute to be used for "general > purpose processing by user agents." According to the spec, a class name could mean whatever it feels like meaning depending on what the browser is. How is that a good thing? > The closest I've seen was made by > David Mark, when he suggested that there could be collisions with > stylesheets over the use of a name. A potential collision between a model and its presentation seems serious enough to me. > Since we should ideally be using > meaningful values for the class attribute, regardless of whether it's > for stylesheets or for other purposes, this shouldn't actually cause > an issue; and if it does, how hard is it to catch in testing and fix > with a synonym? Meaningful names, not meaning. That's the difference I think is being overlooked. > Other than that, all I've seen is claims that it's a bad idea, with no > arguments to back up these claims. See above. > Could someone making the argument against the use of class names for > non-CSS purposes state some actual *reasons*? See above.
From: "Michael Haufe ("TNO")" on 2 Apr 2010 13:31 On Apr 2, 12:22 pm, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Whether or not the specs are relevant, there is still no argument > presented for the point in question: Why should we not use the > "class" attribute for non-CSS purposes? Because meaning and meaningful are two different things. <div class="toolbox">...</div> Does "toolbox" tell me what it looks like, or tell me what it is? There is no way to know from looking at the code. Do I have to look at the stylesheet, do I have to look at the other toolboxes to see if there is a common use? Or is it some combination of both. Does this browser treat this element special because its a predefined class like the way HTML5 treats some class names? These are rhetorical questions of course.
From: David Mark on 2 Apr 2010 14:24 Scott Sauyet wrote: > David Mark wrote: >> Scott Sauyet wrote: >>> David Mark wrote: > >>> I've just re-read this entire thread, and I've seen nothing that >>> offers a good reason why to be more restrictive than the spec's >>> definition, which allows the class attribute to be used for "general >>> purpose processing by user agents." >> But see the comment above (two posts back?) That's what I was referring >> to. In other words, some (including me) are saying it doesn't natter >> what the specs say (or don't say). > > Whether or not the specs are relevant, there is still no argument > presented for the point in question: Why should we not use the > "class" attribute for non-CSS purposes? > I suggest you re-read the thread again Backwards would be best as Michael just re-iterated the argument an hour ago, a snippet of which (now snipped) was what started this tangent concerning what the specs say (or don't say) about the subject.
From: Antony Scriven on 2 Apr 2010 14:43
On Apr 2, 6:31 pm, Michael Haufe wrote: > On Apr 2, 12:22 pm, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Whether or not the specs are relevant, there is still > > no argument presented for the point in question: Why > > should we not use the "class" attribute for non-CSS > > purposes? > > Because meaning and meaningful are two different things. > > <div class="toolbox">...</div> > > Does "toolbox" tell me what it looks like, or tell me > what it is? There is no way to know from looking at the > code. Do I have to look at the stylesheet, do I have to > look at the other toolboxes to see if there is a common > use? Or is it some combination of both. Does this > browser treat this element special because its > a predefined class like the way HTML5 treats some class > names? These are rhetorical questions of course. And if classes are used purely for CSS, how do those questions suddenly not still apply? Are you suggesting that web documents are built solely from a database schema? --Antony |