David Dixon wrote:
A few people have pointed out that they use the .leftNav etc because
they are more useful to their clients and I would agree that .leftNav is
far more obvious than .col1. However, those names are only useful until
the site needs a redesign/restructure (actually 3 months later we've
decided that our users would prefer the navigation on the left to be a
horizontal nav under the banner... eeek, that .leftNav isn't looking so
obvious now!).
Got it!
.left and .right makes sense to use because if the layout changed such
that we weren't floating them left and right (perhaps next time they
will be lined up to the right and have red border?) then *both* the left
and right class entries would change.
.left and .right are currently being assigned arbitrarily (from a
semantic point of view) to particular images, they have the same
semantic value.
That they both may well change *to the same thing* with a layout change
means that there is no valid semantic name to apply, so we have to drop
back to the next layer down of naming convention and name by appearance.
There aren't many cases where there is a need to do this.
So, when the answer to 'what will this do on the page?' starts with 'all
these items will...' then they should have a classname that is meaningful.
When the answer is 'they all do this; but some of them have this
appearance and some have that. its arbitrary and I assign A or B as my
gut indicates' then you don't have a semantic name.
Although not completely - note that our image has the following (eg):
#block img.left
#block img.right
Only the exact class is non-semantic, there are still plenty of semantic
identifiers on it.
Does that make any sense?
Lea
~ who may be babbling gibberish. More caffeine?
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
