[css-d] Why add an .img class?

I'm a CSS beginner, slowly working through Dan Cedarholm's _Bulletproof Web Design_, and (on p. 80, if you also have the book) he inserts class=img into a dd so he later can reference that class, identifying the dds that contains an image, as opposed to other dds that contains only text. Here's an

Re: [css-d] Why add an .img class?

Charles Dort wrote: #sweden dd.img img {float: left;} I didn't see the point of adding the class to the html code because it seemed to me that it could be identified without it, so I experimented by leaving out the class and addressing it in the CSS with just #sweden dd img {float: left;}

Re: [css-d] Why add an .img class?

Charles Dort escribió: I'm a CSS beginner, slowly working through Dan Cedarholm's _Bulletproof Web Design_, and (on p. 80, if you also have the book) he inserts class=img into a dd so he later can reference that class, identifying the dds that contains an image, as opposed to other dds that

Re: [css-d] Why add an .img class?

2005/10/18, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ... That being said, class img is a poor naming convention. Something like imgleft would have made more sense. And I would strongly discourage naming a class just like an element... I mean, imagine if you made a little typo and put img instead

Re: [css-d] Why add an .img class?

define uncluttered Good markup should describe the content. If there is semantically correct information about the tags that is not immediately used by the current stylesheet, that does not mean the information is 'clutter.' I would prefer the content creator add appropriate classes