[#MMB-1650] Cascading css classes of components are way to specific - MMBase

Details

Type: Improvement
Status: Resolved
Priority: Minor
Resolution: Fixed
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 1.9.0
Component/s: Core

Description:

Hide
<div class="mm_c mm_c_core mm_c_b_welcome ${requestScope.className}" > is to complicated. It would be more simple to use the component names and block names, although they are not namespaced, but this is not easy to comprehend. Like for example: <div class="mm_c core welcome" >

Show
<div class="mm_c mm_c_core mm_c_b_welcome ${requestScope.className}" > is to complicated. It would be more simple to use the component names and block names, although they are not namespaced, but this is not easy to comprehend. Like for example: <div class="mm_c core welcome" >

Issue Links

blocks

This issue blocks:
~~MMB-1388~~ standard css class names for classes for icons and content images

Activity

Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order

Hide

Permalink

Michiel Meeuwissen added a comment - 2008-06-05 08:38

I think de advantage of the current approach is that there can be no confusion about what is a block, and what is a componentl.

It could e.g. be well possible to have a block with the same name as it's component. '_c_' and '_c_b_' make sure no collisions like that can occur.

Namespacing everything by mm_ should prevent all other conflicts.
But perhaps using the mm_c sibling class would be enough.

How about (in css):
mm_c.c_core.b_welcome {
}
or
mm_c.core.b_welcome
?

Show

Michiel Meeuwissen added a comment - 2008-06-05 08:38 I think de advantage of the current approach is that there can be no confusion about what is a block, and what is a componentl. It could e.g. be well possible to have a block with the same name as it's component. '_c_' and '_c_b_' make sure no collisions like that can occur. Namespacing everything by mm_ should prevent all other conflicts. But perhaps using the mm_c sibling class would be enough. How about (in css): mm_c.c_core.b_welcome { } or mm_c.core.b_welcome ?

Hide

Permalink

André van Toly added a comment - 2008-06-27 14:29

I think that would be allright. My main issue with the original approach was that a block would hold to many classes, of whcih many would have never been used.

Show

André van Toly added a comment - 2008-06-27 14:29 I think that would be allright. My main issue with the original approach was that a block would hold to many classes, of whcih many would have never been used.

People

Assignee:

Michiel Meeuwissen

Reporter:

André van Toly
Votes:

0

Watchers:

0

Dates

Created:

2008-04-25 17:49

Updated:

2008-06-27 14:36

Resolved:

2008-06-27 14:36