On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
That being said, MANY people deal just fine with prefix-based
indirection, and at least one indirection mechanisms we already
have in
HTML (class names -> CSS) is *far* more complicated.
Class names and CSS are also a source of great author confusion.
Class names as CSS selectors are somewhat confusing to authors, but in
my experience less so than namespace prefixes. I think there are a few
reasons: (1) indirectly binding style is less surprising to people's
expectations than indirectly binding meaning/identity, since the
indirection links two separate things rather than modifying meaning;
(2) it's harder to make the mistake where you think the class name for
actually *is* the style, than to make the mistake where you think the
prefix *is* the namespace, in fact I have not heard of anyone making
this particular mistake; (3) the effects of incorrect style binding
are likely to be more immediately visible in the context where they
are authored; (4) the binding rules of CSS are simpler and so less
likely to lead to unnoticed copy/paste errors in markup.
Regards,
Maciej
