IE9.js
in [JavaScript]
|
From: Eric Bednarz on 29 Mar 2010 03:28 "Michael Haufe (\"TNO\")" <tno(a)thenewobjective.com> writes: > On Mar 28, 4:44 pm, Eric Bednarz <bedn...(a)fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote: >> David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> writes: >> > Using class names for something other than intended indicates a bad design. >> >> Class names have a general purpose role in HTML; I find it pretty hard >> to think of a use case that isn't covered by that. > > People are using class names for things they weren't meant to be used > for. People do all sorts of things, like disguising opinion as fact to support their polemic. Go figure. > Ironically people are trying to shoehorn semantic meaning into > HTML where it was already available in XHTML (go figure) I have no idea what that means, but 'semantic meaning' sounds pretty convincing. :-)
From: Hans-Georg Michna on 29 Mar 2010 10:33 On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:09:37 -0400, David Mark wrote: >Using class names for something other than intended indicates a bad design. I'm not so sure about that. Sometimes you just need some element grouping, and that is, generally speaking, what the class attribute is for. Whether you then give that group a style or a JavaScript treatment shouldn't matter too much, I think. It is certainly well within the standards to give some elements class attributes, whether they are used in CSS or not. Hans-Georg
From: "Michael Haufe ("TNO")" on 29 Mar 2010 10:33 On Mar 28, 9:16 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The HTML class attribute is not meant to be limited for any particular > task. What is`class` being used for that it was not meant for? I think that's the problem with it. Without a clear definition of purpose, it becomes meaningless. While it's usually used as a hook for CSS, it's also used for meta data which is a questionable thing IMO, also I've seen it used as a data storage location. If I have the following: <div class="foo bar baz quux"></div> That information has no meaning. You're forced to evaluate stylesheets and some perceived data model to figure out the purpose. I don't see this as a good thing.
From: "Michael Haufe ("TNO")" on 29 Mar 2010 10:38 On Mar 29, 2:28 am, Eric Bednarz <bedn...(a)fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote: > People do all sorts of things, like disguising opinion as fact to > support their polemic. Go figure. Do you have a point to make or not? Disguising vague comments as arguments does no good either. > I have no idea what that means, but semantic meaning sounds > pretty convincing. :-) http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm I don't see how mixing semantics with presentation is desirable as mentioned in my previous post.
From: "Michael Haufe ("TNO")" on 29 Mar 2010 10:39
On Mar 29, 9:33 am, Hans-Georg Michna <hans- georgNoEmailPle...(a)michna.com> wrote: > I don't doubt the general usefulness. The problem is that the > different browsers do not adhere to a good, clearly defined > standard and implement it well. > > With such problems they might have been better off doing > nothing. I would argue that it is simply too soon to rely on the API. |