Re: [Docutils-develop] Name for new attribute

[Aahz <aa...@py...>]

On Sun, May 11, 2003, Stefan Merten wrote:
>
> Since David seems to be decided to introduce the unholy attribute
> named ``class`` in HTML - could it get at least a correct name in
> reST? 

Why do you call it unholy?

>   3. a group, set, or kind sharing common attributes: as
>      a. a major category in biological taxonomy ranking above the
>         order and below the phylum or division
>      b. a collection of adjacent and discrete or continuous values of
>         a random variable
>      c. SET_ 21
> 
> Probably case 3 is most closely to the meaning intended in HTML here.
> However, in HTML the class attribute has been created to represent
> structural features simply not present in HTML and to have a hook CSS
> can hook in.

That's similar to the intent in reST, actually, though I'd disagree that
the HTML intent is for *structural* features -- it's for formatting
features.  (You specify the formatting by providing a structural hook,
but structure is not the focus.)

> As far as I understood this should not be the intended meaning in
> reST. However, in reST it should be more like a hint or so for a
> writer to create some special output style. If so could the attribute
> be named that way then?

That's exactly how it works in HTML, too.

> Ahm - prehaps it would be useful to explicitly think about the
> intended meaning of such an attribute instead of simply copying the
> meaning from HTML?

Based on my understanding of the intent, "class" works just fine.
"Type" and "group" would also work, but they're even more generic.
-- 
Aahz (aa...@py...)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"In many ways, it's a dull language, borrowing solid old concepts from
many other languages & styles:  boring syntax, unsurprising semantics,
few automatic coercions, etc etc.  But that's one of the things I like
about it."  --Tim Peters on Python, 16 Sep 93