[whatwg] rel/rev for <form> ?
lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au
Wed Nov 9 18:37:07 PST 2005
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> Of course, the UA does not care about "semantic" class names. In both
> cases, the UA only sees opaque strings that can be tested for equality
> with strings present in CSS selectors.
Technically yes, without a profile, they only have author-defined
semantics which are unknown to anyone else, and I wouldn't expect a
typical UA to be able to do anything with them. So, you could write
<code class="red"> and define that to mean a snippet of HTML markup and
style it appropriately (not necessarily red), but that wouldn't be very
clear to anyone else, nor easy to remember. At least something like
<code class="html"> is easy for yourself and others to work with.
> The class names in the latter case may be "semantic" in the private
> universe of the author, but they do not communicate semantics to
> software developed by someone else without a prior agreement (possibly
> in the form of a third-party spec) on the meaning of the class names.
With meaningful class names, there doesn't necessarily have to be a spec
defining them to be useful to anyone else. There's nothing stopping
anyone looking at your source code and writing a user style sheet or
user JS that works with your code. Without meaningful class names,
doing that may be harder for the user.
> As far as the UA goes, the "semantic" class names could be translated
> into Finnish or into Elvish or be replaced with unique random strings.
Indeed they could, and they would have exactly the same formally defined
semantics as an english class name: none. The usefulness of a class
name to others, though, is limited to those that understand or can
roughly determine its semantics.
> So in the end, home-grown class names are just style hooks when observed
> outside the private universe of the author.
Also useful for scripting hooks.
More information about the whatwg