Re: on Why= with keyword REV= et al

Michael J Hannah (
Tue, 16 May 95 13:12:43 EDT

++ From: (Craig Hubley)
++ Date: Tue, 16 May 95 04:18:05 EDT

++ The fact that so many people confuse these issues makes me think that
++ we should follow Ian's suggestion, add an ACTION attribute to the LINK
++ and A tags, and separate once and for all the *author's idea of the
++ relationship* from the *browser's visual presentation of that same
++ relationship*. There is value in keeping the two together, but with
++ no universal mechanism for binding several presentation functions to
++ the same abstract relationship, it's probably hopeless.

I completely agree that we need to separate the *author's idea of the
relationship* from the *browser's visual presentation of that same
relationship* I agree that this concept leads to a separate attribute.
As Murry Maloney has taught me, it is necessary for this standard to
keep a clear separation between markings to identify kinds of
information, and markings guiding presentation.

I disagree on the spelling of the attribute. It seems to me HTML has
already defined an attribute for the purpose of guiding the *browser's
visual presentation" and its spelling is CLASS. Unfortunately, since
REL exists in both LINK and A, and the A element already has a CLASS
attribute for a different purpose, I propose the spelling of this
attribute as RELCLASS. Of course, if we keep both REL and REV we will
need both RELCLASS and REVCLASS. That would have been necessary anyway
because the author may wish to guide the *browser's visual presentation
of the relationship* differently for REL and REV.

Use of the spelling ???CLASS will, I believe, be an automatic indicator
that this is presentation guidelines, and suggest that a companion
style guide would deal with the method of presentation.

I think we should keep the strong separation of presentation information
in the style guide, and information markings in the HTML, with CLASS
being the coordination point.

++ From: Peter Flynn <>
++ But I don't see what <why> would do that <note role="reason"> wouldn't.
I also do not agree with the proposal to make WHY a keyword. I agree
with Peter that NOTE would be better, but let's keep with the existing
attribute CLASS. I don't see what role= would do that class= doesn't,
since the real point of either is presentation guidance.