On 23/11/05, Lst Recv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, is this really hitting it properly? "class" is, afterall, > for presenatation, not semantics.
Is it? Where does it say that? The specification uses class names which describe semantics, not presentation. > Semantically, we're just saying it's a paragraph. No. Those are just the semantics that user agents are likely to recognise. > It seems that the better way to do it would be to invent new XHTML > tags on an ad-hoc, as needed basis. If you "just invent them" then they aren't XHTML tags. You could mix namespaces, but then you say goodbye to the text/html content-type and a great deal of support among user agents (nothing important... unless you consider GoogleBot and Internet Explorer important). > 1) It's more semantic No, it isn't. > 2) It allows us to handle presentation independent of meaning No, it doesn't. It lets you reserve classes for presenational data ... but that isn't a good thing. > 3) It probably makes it a bit easier for machines to parse the document They would still need to parse your presentational class names, so I wouldn't like to bet on it. > Are there any disadvantages? Are there any browsers that won't style > unknown elements Plenty. -- David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk><http://blog.dorward.me.uk> ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
