- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: 2000年6月13日 18:01:35 -0400
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Cc: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000613175721.0245a630@localhost>
Charles, Are you suggesting something along the lines of <P class="http://foo.bar/definition.htm"> ? That does not seem to be the most elegant way to do things. Isn't there some way to use RDF? Namespaces? something else? I agree that the URI is helpful for the person who want to find out about the semantics, but how would this be machine-understandable? I like Marja's original idea of include ID's on elements. ID's could be arbitrary and automatically generated for block elements. Then, annotations could be attached to any element in the document. --wendy At 04:41 AM 6/12/00 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >Actually, in the context of the "semantic web", and RDF, I have a suggestion >to make, which is that classes be used which are URIs - prefereably real >ones. This would enable two things to happen: > > 1. An author could explain, at the URI in a dereferenceable document, what >the class was about or for. > > 2. It would become more or less trivial to make RDF assertions about >classes, and therefore about how to re-use existing ones rather than create >new ones for each piece of content. > >In general, I am opposed to making a class if it can be avoided (for example, >it is better to use the existing CODE element than to produce a style class >for delineating code examples). In particular I would suggest that the >semantics of map were not extended in HTML 4.01, merely the syntax, which was >extended to match in the real world the semantics of the specification. But >that is a trivial question I guess. > >cheers > >Charles McCN > >On 2000年6月12日, Jason White wrote: > > Interestingly, there has been significant resistance, within this working > group, to any attempt to provide common semantics to specific values of > the HTML CLASS attribute, either within the guidelines or techniques > documents. The basic rationale was that the semantics of CLASS values were > left completely unconstrained by the HTML specification and it was > desirable not to create an inconsistency, or apparent inconsistency, > between HTML 4.0 and the guidelines. It was also urged that content > developers should have total freedom in creating style sheets to use the > CLASS attribute as they wished. > >[and so on] -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative madison, wi usa tel: +1 608 663 6346 /--
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 18:01:27 UTC