w3c
Do we need namespacing?
The classes used in these styles apply to many documents that also have their own styles. Adding new classes could easily clash. Should we introduce w3c- prefixes for ours?
w3c-* is already used for classes in specs indeed. Although a quick search returns only a few — among those: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xmlbase-20000607.html, http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xinclude-20010516/Overview.html, http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-resource-priorities-20141023/Overview.html.
It's used almost only to indicate the type of spec and in the main h2:
<body class="w3c-note">
<h2 class="w3c-doctype" align="center">W3C Working Draft 07-June-2000</h2>
@Nantonos, what does cr stand for? Shouldn't it be tr?
@Nantonos, what does cr stand for? Shouldn't it be tr?
CR == Candidate Recommendation, such as http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/CR-html5-20140731/.
OK, so I thought at first, but I discarded that meaning because, why use CR as the prefix? I mean, aren't we talking about TR in general, ie all types and kinds of specs?
Oh sorry, I misunderstood @Nantonos's comment… I see he was giving an example of such prefix already being used.
So we need a different prefix to be used as a namespace, yes? How about tr-, then? (It's short and generic, probably not used already.)
A namespace would have prevented the accidental clash of the .content rule in the UD stylesheet with Bikeshed's use of .content on heading contents, so I'm in favor of this. tr- sounds fine.
I think this is fine for things in the header, but wouldn't make sense for things like examples and notes. However, since we're not changing the header markup at this time, I'm going to leave this open until we do tackle markup.
