> >> By the way, can you tell me the difference between:
> >> div.item {blah blah}
> >> and simply
> >> .item {blah blah}
> >> ?
>
> > div.item {...}
> > Means something like, it tells the software (the browser) to find /any
> > division element/ with a class attribute called "item"
> > And is more specific than just:
>
> > .item {...}
> > telling the software to find /any element/ with a class attribute called
> > "item"
>
> All of that is right, I'm just going add my two cents on usage.
>
> I default to the tag.class syntax as a form of self documentation. There
> aren't that many times you want to give the same class to multiple tags
and
> have it do the same thing, so including the tag, even when it's not
strictly
> necessary, lets you know what it's applying to, so you have a better idea
of
> what other styles (default browser styles, tag specified styles, etc) are
> being added to or over-ruled. You can always remove the tag name if you
> discover that you really want to apply the class to a whole bunch of tags.
>
> I do the same thing for id selectors (#thisSpecificThing), even though
id's
> are unique, so they only specify one element anyway. That means that
> "div#content" instead of "#content" is totally redundant, but again,
easier to
> comprehend (IMHO).
>
> End of my $0.02.
Start of mine
Adding the element to the class or ID name adds weight which can lead to
more complex rules and styling than necessary.
--
Regards,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [[email protected]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
