Now that's a question to spark debate! Without leaning one way or another there are a number of different approaches you might try.
Have you considered CSS frameworks such as Blueprint CSS[1] or the 960 grid system[2]? These approaches help to standardize your CSS by providing the basic page layout with cross-browser compatible, minimal and semantic markup. You are then left to style (bring life to) the page with the content and look and feel. There is also the old-school developer approach where you get a little more freedom. You start by resetting your css [3], then set all of your basic styles and general classes (which probably differ little across sites) and set your site/section/page/page sub-section specific styles. Traditional developers like this approach because they use their own naming conventions, and often can re-use the base css files. > I'm guessing this sort of structuring comes at a cost because a number of > requests need to be made to the server. You're certainly right with the cost in terms speed, by increasing the number of CSS files, but what about the cost of development time, readability and re-usability? -- Matt Fellows http://www.onegeek.com.au/ References: [1] - http://code.google.com/p/blueprintcss/ [2] - http://960.gs/ [3] - http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2007/05/01/reset-reloaded/ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
