At 10:44 AM -0500 2/29/08, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Andrew Ballard <aballard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Jason Pruim <japruim@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> <style>
> .red {
> color: red;
> }
> </style>
Let's just get all purist and go back to the class="highlight" so we
don't find ourselves a year later with a stylesheet that includes
.red {
color: green;
}
Andrew makes a good point, Jason. Despite the fact that it's just
a reference, it's easier to make a general reference to "highlight"
that can later be changed to weird colors like shale, aquamarine,
coffee, and taupe, than to have a style called "red" and have a future
designer look at the source and say, "damn, that Jason Pruim guy
doesn't know his .red from a #804000 in the ground.
Yes, but there are two points here.
One is if you want to be specific about a design element, then call
it whatever you please. But, if on the other hand, you want a general
old-world font-color, or font-bold, or font-whatever, then you can
use css to do that for you very easily.
I am not saying use class="red" that might later be changed to green
-- that would be very short sighted. But let's say you have a client
that wants "BUY" to be red, I don't see any problems with using
class="red" in your html tag.
Also, later if the client says "That red is bright enough" you can
always change it to another shade without violating the "red" thing..
If the client say "I want that to be green", you can always refer to
the design specs that said otherwise; do a global search and replace;
and bill for your time.
All I'm saying here is to consider easy-to-under semantics in writing
css rules.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
