I disagree on the clearfix bash. Working on dynamically generated sites at an enterprise level with years of legacy content populating widely divergent designs, clearfix was the best thing ever. As the single UX/CSS developer working with multiple development teams, sites and applications ... clearfix is a clean and reasonably benign tool. At the time, I got very excited and tried the overflow method and ended up with unending problems, each requiring unique special touch and time. Overflow method got ripped out within 6 months of introducing it. Clearfix just works. Whether added explicitly to a control using that method on a repeated container or adding a common wrapper class to the definition, the clearfix method reduced the technical maintenance burden at a tiny semantic purity cost. And I never had to touch all templates or documents for hack management.
With the improvement of browsers and adoption of HTML5/CSS3 its time is ending. But it is a very good solution for its time and scope. ELIZABETH DAVIES Gallup Input | Intellection | Learner | Achiever | Belief > The “clearfix” hack is one of the worst hacks we’ve ever seen because not > only was it never (not as much) needed [1], not only did it violate every > naming best practice [2], but it also (well, > poor naming already implies > that) guaranteed authors to touch all the templates and documents again just > for hack management. All information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. Only intended recipients are authorized to use it. ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [[email protected]] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
