Comments on: Rounded Corners – 170 (For certain values of normal) http://labnotes.org/2007/12/06/rounded-corners-170/ Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:36:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Assaf http://labnotes.org/2007/12/06/rounded-corners-170/comment-page-1/#comment-139014 Assaf Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:48:49 +0000 http://blog.labnotes.org/2007/12/06/rounded-corners-170/#comment-139014 dkubb, I was most scared of the label "framework", but I'm playing with Blueprint CSS right now (pretending it's a template, not a framework, helps). I'll have a look at Tripoli. Semantic is a fine line. I think .error is better for error messages than .red, but .red does have semantics of its own. Most often what you need is a .sidebar, but ever so often it matters which side you're on, and .left-pane makes a difference. When in doubt I choose to err on the side of being too semantic. I'm still evaluating Blueprint CSS, I think they have just enough semantics for the common stuff (and I'm adding a lot of my own styles), not so sure if the CSS-based grid is any better than using tables. Lyle, thanks, corrected. dkubb, I was most scared of the label “framework”, but I’m playing with Blueprint CSS right now (pretending it’s a template, not a framework, helps). I’ll have a look at Tripoli.

Semantic is a fine line. I think .error is better for error messages than .red, but .red does have semantics of its own. Most often what you need is a .sidebar, but ever so often it matters which side you’re on, and .left-pane makes a difference. When in doubt I choose to err on the side of being too semantic.

I’m still evaluating Blueprint CSS, I think they have just enough semantics for the common stuff (and I’m adding a lot of my own styles), not so sure if the CSS-based grid is any better than using tables.

Lyle, thanks, corrected.

]]> By: Lyle http://labnotes.org/2007/12/06/rounded-corners-170/comment-page-1/#comment-139013 Lyle Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:22:45 +0000 http://blog.labnotes.org/2007/12/06/rounded-corners-170/#comment-139013 _Rude_ Goldberg? _Rude_ Goldberg?

]]> By: dkubb http://labnotes.org/2007/12/06/rounded-corners-170/comment-page-1/#comment-139012 dkubb Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:19:01 +0000 http://blog.labnotes.org/2007/12/06/rounded-corners-170/#comment-139012 While I'm not the biggest fan of CSS Frameworks, I do like the Tripoli CSS package. Its light-weight and mostly consists of Stylesheets that reset browsers and "levels the playing field" so browsers display content as close as possible by default. This forces you to add rules explicitly and not rely on default browser styling -- default styles which may or may not be present on other browsers. The problem I have with many CSS frameworks is they encourage you to use non-semantic classes in the HTML. In my mind that's a mistake. An non-semantic class name is worse than font tags or table based layouts since a developer *thinks* they are following web standards, and doesn't encourage further learning in the area. At least with fonts and table based layouts its obvious to the developer (and everyone else) that the he has more learning to do. If you're going to do it, learn to do it right. While I’m not the biggest fan of CSS Frameworks, I do like the Tripoli CSS package. Its light-weight and mostly consists of Stylesheets that reset browsers and “levels the playing field” so browsers display content as close as possible by default. This forces you to add rules explicitly and not rely on default browser styling — default styles which may or may not be present on other browsers.

The problem I have with many CSS frameworks is they encourage you to use non-semantic classes in the HTML. In my mind that’s a mistake. An non-semantic class name is worse than font tags or table based layouts since a developer *thinks* they are following web standards, and doesn’t encourage further learning in the area. At least with fonts and table based layouts its obvious to the developer (and everyone else) that the he has more learning to do. If you’re going to do it, learn to do it right.

]]>