4 ms·

The intentions are baked into your class name, if you were to change the style later and favor underlining rather than bold text, it would require a change to t

by robmcm 11y ago

The intentions are baked into your class name, if you were to change the style later and favor underlining rather than bold text, it would require a change to the HTML (or some rather misleading code). The same could be said for a mobile device, where italic could be hard to read, so, say a different font is used. Again this would require changes to the HTML and breaks the separation of style from markup. It doesn't particularly offend me, but I though it would be worth pointing out why some people disagree with this style of class naming.

moron4hire 11y ago
I once semi-started questioning whether I had gone colorblind or taken acid or something after having to work on a page that had style classes named after cerrain colors like "red", or "yellow", but there were no such colors on the screen. Incidentally, they had also ended up being reused to do some position and size styling, as well. Just complete malarky. I think of this stuff as the equivalent of walking into a job site and finding a dozen surge protectors daisy-chained and clustered together, with everyone there oblivious to the problem. "What? If it works, it works. Don't criticize."
talmand 11y ago
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with having such utility classes. It could have a distinct use, especially for Javascript. It's just you shouldn't use such a class solely for design purposes, for the reasons you point out.
- robmcm 11y ago
  Yes using something like "strong" rather than "bold" as they did in the HTML spec. For custom sections where you want to add styles you should consider what you are styling such as an "event", "highlight", "keyword", "first", "last" etc. Although the HTML5 tags are a lot more descriptive, numerous and extensible now, so css classes may not be the only option to add style descriptors to your content.

by robmcm 11y ago

moron4hire 11y ago

I once semi-started questioning whether I had gone colorblind or taken acid or something after having to work on a page that had style classes named after cerrain colors like "red", or "yellow", but there were no such colors on the screen. Incidentally, they had also ended up being reused to do some position and size styling, as well. Just complete malarky. I think of this stuff as the equivalent of walking into a job site and finding a dozen surge protectors daisy-chained and clustered together, with everyone there oblivious to the problem. "What? If it works, it works. Don't criticize."

talmand 11y ago

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with having such utility classes. It could have a distinct use, especially for Javascript. It's just you shouldn't use such a class solely for design purposes, for the reasons you point out.

robmcm 11y ago
Yes using something like "strong" rather than "bold" as they did in the HTML spec. For custom sections where you want to add styles you should consider what you are styling such as an "event", "highlight", "keyword", "first", "last" etc. Although the HTML5 tags are a lot more descriptive, numerous and extensible now, so css classes may not be the only option to add style descriptors to your content.