Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
I'd go with something along those lines, yes, or even more generically
(if you foresee that at some point you may not want all images on the
same position, but differentiate them some other way - e.g. one has a
blue border, the other a red border, etc) having classnames like type1,
type2, type3 (as that doesn't imply position).
I do the same thing (.left, .right, etc) too.
I think it works, and only in very specific cases, because you *aren't*
going to change what these look like - you are far more likely to remove
the class.
From the maintainers mindset, normal semantic name choice says 'and
these types of items will have this look and feel (at this stage in the
lifecycle)' whereas in this case we are saying 'and images in this
position have a choice of A, B and C - change the ABC in the markup if
this changes'
I've tried to answer this thread 3 times now with 'I do it this way too
because...' but it keeps coming out as uninteresting!
I know I am using an effective work practice, but damned if I can
explain it! :(
Lea
--
Lea de Groot
Elysian Systems
Brisbane, Australia
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
