13 Mar
2012
13 Mar
'12
3:21 p.m.
On Tue 13 Mar 2012, Kake L Pugh <kake(a)earth.li> wrote:
It seems like a good policy, but does this mean that we'd have to use
"Baby Changing Facility" (singular) as it's a "has:" category not
an
"is:" category? That looks odd to me as the phrase usually appears in
the plural.
Probably not. :-}
[Goth/Gay etc]
On Tue 13 Mar 2012, Janet McKnight
<janetmck(a)chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
I've looked it up & it appears you can't use colons unless you escape them
out (which will get ugly):
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#characters
Looks good to me (my CSS is out-of-date --
I'm assuming classes with
':' in are generally understood by browsers?).
I was hoping someone would tell me if this isn't the case :) I'm now
thinking though that actually it would probably be safer to use
underscores instead, since colons do have special meaning in stylesheets. Aside: Owen
has observed that there are two (or possibly more)
different types of category: 'is X' (eg 'Cafes') and 'has X' (eg
'Baby Changing Facilities').
Yep. On RGL, the former are plural ("Category Pubs") and the latter
are singular ("Category Beer Garden"). This wasn't entirely on
purpose, it's just the way things mostly turned out, so I decided to
make it a deliberate policy (albeit an unstated one) for the sake of
consistency. On the other
hand, we could then differentiate between the use of 'Cafes'
to mean 'is a cafe' (eg G&Ds) and 'has a cafe' (eg Waterstones). If
we cared.
I'm not sure we do care - does this distinction really matter in a
practical sense? Let's wait a bit and see if anyone else has an
opinion. I have put a note
in my diary to sort it out in a few weeks if it proves uncontroversial.
That's very organised! Thank you. :-)
Jx