This document:Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Device Independence Working Group Other specs in this tool
Quick access to LC-1563 LC-1565 LC-1566 LC-1567 LC-1568 LC-1569 LC-1570 LC-1571 LC-1572 LC-1573 LC-1574 LC-1575 LC-1777
Previous: LC-1777 Next: LC-1572
[disposition rejected; fresh comment/complaint lodged against the corresponding text of the current draft.] Note: This is an editorial, or expository comment; it does not bear on conformance. However, you misunderstood the comment in lumping it under WAI-2, and the problem is still there in the current spec draft, viz.: <quote cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-cselection-20061010/#id2271490"> This variable holds the name of the CSS style class used to provide styling definitions for the user experience. </quote> This language is highly offensive. The 'class' attribute, used right, - *is* used to key styling decisions - *is not* used to provide styling definitions Styles and classes, used right, are not one-to-one. In WAI-2 you did address the issue of "use content categories, not styling categories as 'class' categories." Here it is not a question of the terms the [host-language document instance] author uses in the 'class' attribute but the colloquial language used to misname the 'class' attribute. Just say " the 'class' attribute" and don't say "the CSS style class" and this expository fault will be fixed. This terminology is in the spec and you control it. The class tokens authors use is on the other hand a matter out of your control. Al At 11:15 AM +0000 1/4/06, Roland Merrick wrote: >Greetings Al, thanks for your comments on the content selection last >call [1]. As part of this you include >"<http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-cselection-20050502/#error-events>Reword >to eliminate "CSS class" terminology". > >The DIWG assigned this comment the identifier Gilman-4 > >This mail documents DIWG's response to your comments. > >DIWG Response >============= > >We agree that this is a valid comment, but we believe that it is the >same issue as WAI-2 and we deal with it under that identifier. >Declining it here does not imply that we do not accept the comment, >merely that we believe it to duplicate another comment. > >[1] >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-diselect-editors/2005AprJun/0012.html > >Regards, Roland