thoughts on non-semantic classnames being normalised?

Interesting how this was back in 2017 🤔

@colinkiama I feel that it conflates a couple of things. Semantic HTML was and is important to make sure your content remains accessible to people with (temporary or long-term) disabilities.

The article, however, mainly argues that meaningful class names are important to make sure that everybody who contributes to a code base understands the purpose of the elements. When an application already consists of properly-named components, however, that concern is already addressed.

@colinkiama The author (Jeffrey Zeldman) of the article opens with "I disagree", linking to another article by Adam Morse and rejecting "non-semantic classnames".

However, the article by Morse (and another linked article by Nicolas Gallagher therein) is not against semantic classnames, but against content-semantic classnames.

So I wonder whether Zeldman and Morse were really talking about the same thing. I guess there is little dispute on non-semantic classnames being bad.

@colinkiama Either I'm missing something here, or Zeldman hasn't really read the article he "disagrees" with, yet claims that "the problem is a dozen people working on something without talking to each other". That would be ironic.

@colinkiama My position is that it doesn't really matter. If you look at some of the monstrosities of HTML on bigger sites, CSS (semantic or otherwise) is the least of your issues because there's so many tags that are just nested and nested and nested.

I can't even imagine what the source before being compiled into a single page looks like. Probably a folder hell hole.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.