<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6001.18148" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The problem with your entire reply is that you take
the last remarks and respond to them out of context, but just on a final
note:</FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<DIV>No, you're misunderstanding. *Why* are you styling some footnotes
differently? </DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>I never said I am styling footnotes
differently. I merely poiiunted out that if we want to style something with
the same class diferently we need to assigne extra classes to it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR> </DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">the
second is<BR>a bit more muddy I think, but the important part there is:
"processing BY<BR>user agents". User agents have no interest in
semantics, so I fail to see<BR>here also why classes may be used to
define semantic
roles.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Microformats.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Don't get me
wrong, microformats are a good idea, but they lack the construct in
standards to be used efficiently. They should not use title or class
attributes. They specify a role and pure semantics and have absolutely
nothing to do with styling on their own.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=gmail_quote><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>You are correct. They *are* pure semantics and
have nothing to do with style. Your conclusion that they should thus not
use title or class attributes is begging the question, however - you're
assuming that classes are purely stylistic from the start. Microformats
were meant to be an example against that - a case where @class is used
completely semantically in a way that UAs can understand, rather than the
standard effect of a semantic language that only the author understands.</DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote> </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sure, classes can be used that
way, but I quoted the HTML4 spec earlier and have not seen anyone contradict
the fact that it does not provide that functionality to the class-attribute.
Now, perhaps it does in the HTML5 spec, if so, I stand corrected.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">The
fact that a class should be named "footnote" for example is only so
you<BR>will not get in trouble (unlike when you use a name like "red" or
"left").<BR>But this only tells me (the author) that this element should
be styled like<BR>a footnote and for the user agent that it should
render it like a footnote.<BR>It should not tell me (or anything else)
that it IS a footnote. This would<BR>lead inevitably to
inflexibility.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Why not enclose your footnotes in
<aside> elements?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Because it isn't an
aside.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=gmail_quote><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>I wish I'd responded to your earlier message here.
"The fact that a class should be named "footnote" for example is only
so you</DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>will not get in trouble (unlike when you use a name
like "red" or "left")" is entirely incorrect. Who would you get in
trouble from, the semantics police?</DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote> </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote><FONT face=Arial size=2>No, from exactly what you
describe below. That was my point. The other point I make here is that no
matter how semantically correct I name my class it is still a stylesheet
hook.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote> The reason you use classes like "footnote"
rather than "red" is because with the former you can change the appearance of
your footnotes and the class still makes sense. With the latter, if you
change your styling (to make it blue, say) you either have to go into the code
and change the class to blue, or you have to change the "red" style itself and
render it completely nonsensical. All CSS is providing you at this point
is a shortcut for the <font> tag, which is completely wasting the
potential of the language.</DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Very true, that is exactly
what I have been saying. The current spec does not take this into account.
As it stands now, I must assign a class-name to the footnote and then style
(and perhaps script) based on that class-reference. But it fails to give me
a proper element to do this. Like I said, I think the Mark element would be
great, but then either it should get a "role" atribute or the examples given
in the spec should give it a more flexible meaning.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Why does the spec need to provide you with a "proper
element"? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Because I was under the impression we want a
semantic web?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Footnotes
(and the likes) fall in the same catagory as definitions, so why not give it
an element just like it? (or broaden the meaning of the
dfn-element).</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Just a day or two ago Ian sent out a reminder of what the process is for
getting something new added to the spec. "Why not?" is *not* part of the
process. If it was, the spec would already have gone down in flames as a
bloated piece of "me too!"-riddled crap. You need to provide *strong
reasons* to get something into the spec, reasons that actually make the lives
of a significant number of authors significantly easier. If something is
a fairly niche area without much direct benefit and which can already be done
well by styling and/or scripting alone, then generally it's not worth adding
to the spec. You can just do it yourself in the rare times that you need
it.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I did not start out this discussion with a "why not" question. But sofar
all the arguments I have been given do not add up logically. And if you say
"why should it"? I can most definatly respond with "why not?"</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>For me the discussion ends here since I don't
think it is worth the trouble. All I can say is that I think discussions on
this list are of a very closed, almost defensive nature. But perhaps that is
my own fault.</FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>