David Dixon wrote:
A few people have pointed out that they use the .leftNav etc because
they are more useful to their clients and I would agree that .leftNav is
far more obvious than .col1. However, those names are only useful until
the site needs a redesign/restructure (actually 3 months later we've
decided that our users would prefer the navigation on the left to be a
horizontal nav under the banner... eeek, that .leftNav isn't looking so
obvious now!).
My own rules I think are quite simple, at least for my use. When it
comes to page elements, I've always tried to name them as *what* they
are as opposed to *where* they are.
So, #primaryNav instead of #topNav, #subNav instead of
#rightColAboveThatThing. Most clients, I'd assume, would be bright
enough to figure out which is which (especially if you comment your
code, ahem...). Then again we all know where assumptions about
clients can get you.
This further breaks out of any dependencies regarding placement and
whatnot. When it comes to images floated within content, a parent
class handle most elements and .left/.right handle the floating, so
throwing back to my last comment about content-based images:
.left { float: left }
.right { float: right }
.contentImage { margin, padding, border, etc }
.contentImage.left { whatever else... }
Although this seems to be much the same as Lea's example:
#block img.left
#block img.right
So... are we talking meta-semantics now? Did I just make a word?
Elliot
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
