On 8/7/07, Bryan Basham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Simon, > > The question of class-based versus ID-based is one of > specificity not "bad versus worse". Our UI designers > use both; there are lots of classes and in the screens > that need it a few ID-based style definitions. These ID-based > elements need to override the class styles defined for those > HTML elements. That is, after all, the whole point of making > the style sheets "cascading". >
Well, I guess I have to agree that it's required because some browsers (i.e. the notorious) don't support composite selectors like .foo.bar, but otherwise there's nothing not achievable using them. I find ids just too specific, but I guess that's just me. Regards, ~ Simon So, I guess we must "agree to disagree" on this issue. > > Regards, > Bryan > > Simon Lessard wrote: > > On 8/7/07, Bryan Basham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the responses, Andrew and Simon. > > > > Yes, we are aware that *some* browsers are able to handle > > colon-escaped IDs, but the reality is that our product must support > > IE (6 and 7) which does not allow this. And, yes, we are also > > aware of the suggestion that you can use class-based styles rather > > than ID-based styles, but this is not an elegant solution. > > > I have to disagree with that. imho, CSS file including an element id is > worst than style classes. > > >
