styleable enough?

[Bruce Lewis]

Please check the HTML on the following page:

http://ourdoings.com/csstest1/

I've added some CLASS attributes to a lot of the tags, but haven't done
lots of spans like in csszengarden. Is the HTML flexible enough for
designers to create a variety of looks just by changing the CSS?

[Spartanicus]

Re: styleable enough?

Bruce Lewis <brlspam@yahoo. com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Please check the HTML on the following page:
>
>http://ourdoings.com/csstest1/
>
>I've added some CLASS attributes to a lot of the tags, but haven't done
>lots of spans like in csszengarden.[/color]

The csszengarden markup should not be used as an example of general
purpose authoring, quite the contrary actually. I'm sure they mention
that themselves.
[color=blue]
>Is the HTML flexible enough for
>designers to create a variety of looks just by changing the CSS?[/color]

Unless you intend to create a challenge like csszengarden you should use
the minimum number of id's and classes that you need at the time of
creation, instead use selectors where you can.

It's a false concept to think that you should be able to drastically
change the styling and/or layout of a page with css without making any
changes to the markup.

--
Spartanicus

[Bruce Lewis]

Re: styleable enough?

Spartanicus <me@privacy.net > writes:
[color=blue]
> Bruce Lewis <brlspam@yahoo. com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >Please check the HTML on the following page:
> >
> >http://ourdoings.com/csstest1/
> >
> >I've added some CLASS attributes to a lot of the tags, but haven't done
> >lots of spans like in csszengarden.[/color]
>
> The csszengarden markup should not be used as an example of general
> purpose authoring, quite the contrary actually. I'm sure they mention
> that themselves.[/color]

Yes, and I'm not doing this for general-purpose authoring. This is a
database-driven site for a cross between blogs and photo albums. I
don't plan on giving a wide variety of choices of markup, but do want to
allow the sufficiently motivated to do some CSS-based customization.
The extent to which I'll provide a nice user interface to ease such
customization remains to be seen. The emphasis really should be on
getting good content published in a timely manner, but I know a lot of
people can't help but focus on presentation issues.

I'd like the markup to support a decent amount of customization. More
important, I'd like not to have to change the markup down the line to
enable more flexibility, if it has to be done in such a way as to break
CSS that fits the current markup. That's why I wanted to ask if the
current markup was flexible enough.

--

http://ourdoings.com/ Let your digital photos organize themselves.
Sign up today for a 7-day free trial.

[Gus Richter]

Re: styleable enough?

Bruce Lewis wrote:[color=blue]
> Spartanicus <me@privacy.net > writes:
>
>[color=green]
>>Bruce Lewis <brlspam@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Please check the HTML on the following page:
>>>
>>>http://ourdoings.com/csstest1/
>>>
>>>I've added some CLASS attributes to a lot of the tags, but haven't done
>>>lots of spans like in csszengarden.[/color]
>>
>>The csszengarden markup should not be used as an example of general
>>purpose authoring, quite the contrary actually. I'm sure they mention
>>that themselves.[/color]
>
>
> Yes, and I'm not doing this for general-purpose authoring. This is a
> database-driven site for a cross between blogs and photo albums. I
> don't plan on giving a wide variety of choices of markup, but do want to
> allow the sufficiently motivated to do some CSS-based customization.
> The extent to which I'll provide a nice user interface to ease such
> customization remains to be seen. The emphasis really should be on
> getting good content published in a timely manner, but I know a lot of
> people can't help but focus on presentation issues.
>
> I'd like the markup to support a decent amount of customization. More
> important, I'd like not to have to change the markup down the line to
> enable more flexibility, if it has to be done in such a way as to break
> CSS that fits the current markup. That's why I wanted to ask if the
> current markup was flexible enough.
>[/color]

General-purpose or not has no relevance in my mind. Your document
contains elements. All elements can be styled. SPAN is just another
element which may be styled. CLASS or ID permits selective styling among
several like elements. I have difficulty in applying the issue of
"enough flexibility" to styling; its all in what you want it to look like.

You may be thinking in terms of Alternate Stylesheets when you mention
changing the CSS to create a variety of looks. It may interest you to
have a look at this plaything (using a little Javascript) which uses
"Alternate Styles" (which IE also supports) rather than "Alternate
Stylesheets". (Disregard the fixed box, which was for Opera in
discussing bugs.) The point to note is the extent of different styling
which is possible. It's only limited by your imagination.

--
Gus

[Gus Richter]

Re: styleable enough?

Gus Richter wrote:[color=blue]
> It may interest you to
> have a look at this plaything (using a little Javascript) which uses
> "Alternate Styles" (which IE also supports) rather than "Alternate
> Stylesheets".[/color]

All that and I forgot the URL. Sorry, but here it is:

http://www.home.golden.net/~richterf/Opera/ChangeClass_4_Opera_1.html

--
Gus

[Spartanicus]

Re: styleable enough?

Bruce Lewis <brlspam@yahoo. com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> >Please check the HTML on the following page:
>> >
>> >http://ourdoings.com/csstest1/
>> >
>> >I've added some CLASS attributes to a lot of the tags, but haven't done
>> >lots of spans like in csszengarden.[/color]
>>
>> The csszengarden markup should not be used as an example of general
>> purpose authoring, quite the contrary actually. I'm sure they mention
>> that themselves.[/color]
>
>Yes, and I'm not doing this for general-purpose authoring. This is a
>database-driven site for a cross between blogs and photo albums. I
>don't plan on giving a wide variety of choices of markup, but do want to
>allow the sufficiently motivated to do some CSS-based customization.[/color]

That information should have been part of the original message.
[color=blue]
>I'd like the markup to support a decent amount of customization. More
>important, I'd like not to have to change the markup down the line to
>enable more flexibility, if it has to be done in such a way as to break
>CSS that fits the current markup.[/color]

To allow the styling to be changed you really should get rid of the
presentational markup first.

This is never going to work: class="entry _2004 _200404 _20040424"
Use a single class for the thumbnail paragraphs, get rid of the
class="thumb" on the thumbnail images as these can be targeted with a
descendant selector, same applies to the class="shortDat e" on the strong
elements (inappropriate markup btw).

Get rid of the table also, use an unordered list for a list of links.

The double class="top siteTitle" on the header div isn't needed either.

--
Spartanicus

[Bruce Lewis]

Re: styleable enough?

Spartanicus <me@privacy.net > writes:
[color=blue]
> This is never going to work: class="entry _2004 _200404 _20040424"[/color]

My idea there was to enable people to set custom backgrounds for
specific years, months or dates. If that isn't going to work, I could
go with database driven markup (style="...") for such cases.

--

http://ourdoings.com/ Let your digital photos organize themselves.
Sign up today for a 7-day free trial.

[Spartanicus]

Re: styleable enough?

Bruce Lewis <brlspam@yahoo. com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> This is never going to work: class="entry _2004 _200404 _20040424"[/color]
>
>My idea there was to enable people to set custom backgrounds for
>specific years, months or dates.[/color]

I didn't spot the spaces, I thought it was one class name.

--
Spartanicus