Webunity | Gilles van den Hoven schrieb:
> Please test and let me know if there are any bugs. If not, i'll commit
> it to SVN.
>
Just a quicky, there may be more later: Instead of 10 classnames per
type of element, using 30 different classnames for all three, why split
some of those classes?
I'm thinking of a stylesheet that looks like this:
.ch_active { all active styles }
.ch_checkbox { checkbox styles }
.ch_checkbox.ch_active { active styles only for checkbox }
That would result in those possible classes:
ch_active, ch_focus, ch_over, ch_down, ch_disabled and all those for
types like ch_checkbox, ch_button etc.
Is there a good reason to not use something like this? I think it's
easier to write the necessary stylesheet and much more flexible. And
comparing *.ch_checkbox_active to **.ch_checkbox.ch_active: it's only
two characters more.*
--
Jörn Zaefferer
http://bassistance.de
_______________________________________________
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http://jquery.com/discuss/
