Oh, I see what you're saying. You're talking about internal classing.
Yea, that would be nice. :)
On Jan 20, 4:22 pm, Ricardo Tomasi <ricardob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, but not with that short syntax. An ID in front of every
> declaration is ugly as hell and not very forgiving of file size
> either.
>
> On Jan 20, 6:56 pm, Eric Garside <gars...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You can do that now...
>
> > #myPreciousWidget.title // Matches <div id="myPreciousWidget"
> > class="title">
>
> > or
>
> > #myPreciousWidget .title // Matches <div id="myPreciousWidget"><div
> > class="title"></div></div>
>
> > Also, I'm not sure I understand your issue exactly. How did you manage
> > to create site-specific CSS that has the same classes as the plugin's
> > css?
>
> > And at the risk of sounding like those guys who say if you practiced a
> > real guitar instead of guitar hero you'd be good at a real guitar: In
> > the time it's taken you to defend your position, you could have
> > probably rewritten your CSS correctly. :\
>
> > On Jan 20, 3:02 pm, Ricardo Tomasi <ricardob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Geez you really take heart at defending your solution don't you?
>
> > > But you're not going to convince anyone that "find & replace" is good
> > > programming practice. In a hopefully not far future CSS will allow
> > > something like this:
>
> > > #myPreciousWidget {
> > > .title {
> > > color:#FFF
> > > }
> > > .content {
> > > padding: 5px;
> > > margin: 20px;
> > > float: yesplease;
> > > }
>
> > > }
>
> > > and then all our problems will be solved.
>
> > > I promise I'm actually leaving this thread now :)
>
> > > On Jan 20, 5:34 pm, johny why <johny...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > there is another well-established programming principle-- modularity.
> > > > the idea is the less tightly-coupled components are, the easier it is
> > > > to upgrade any one of them, or switch it out with a replacement. one
> > > > technique to achieve modularity is to reduce the scope of variables--
> > > > keep the variable-name within the procedure or module where it's used,
> > > > rather than making it a global variable. those who want me to debug
> > > > conflicts between the widget and site (rather than make the widget
> > > > self-contained) would have me keep all my variables global. why not
> > > > outlaw id's and classes while we're at it? that's really cheating,
> > > > isn't it? only a non-programmer would use a cheap work-around like
> > > > id's and classes!
>
> > > > if the widget is self-contained, then i can upgrade or replace the
> > > > widget without worrying about style conflicts. !important is like a
> > > > modular variable-- it says 'hey website css, you can't mess with me.'
> > > > that's in-keeping with the principle of modularity. what if tomorrow i
> > > > want to switch to AListApart, or MenuMatic, or Uvumi, or LavaLamp?
> > > > what if tomorrow i want to add a thermometer or calendar widget? would
> > > > you have me open up firebug all over again, and work out the css
> > > > conflicts every time i switch to a different widget? jeez, i wish i
> > > > was getting paid by the hour for that!
>
> > > > isn't jQuery itself based on the concept of encapsulating
> > > > functionality in self-contained units? it would be quite a mess if
> > > > individual jQuery plugins broke each other, would it not?
>
> > > > i wonder if this is a cultural-gap? javascript does not support
> > > > modularity very easily, as described in Haverbeke's "Eloquent
> > > > JavaScript". he provides some techniques for achieving modularity in
> > > > javascript here:http://eloquentjavascript.net/chapter9.html
