Comments on: Elemental Nomenclature

By: Semantic Naming Conventions « Adrian Pelletier

Semantic Naming Conventions « Adrian Pelletier — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:39:34 +0000

[...] Elemental Nomenclature [...]

By: lewis litanzios

lewis litanzios — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:52:45 +0000

@heath

‘Designers should be left to really focus on the look of things and programmers should be left to code. This would also help to keep html semantically clean and force css spec”s to continue to evolve. I think the more html and css hold hands the more they hold each other back. It”s always hard, but the couple needs to divorce for both to really grow.’

i disagree with this, but i can see where you’re coming from. i took this attitude a few years ago. i feel it’s so often the case for designers to ‘bottle it’ (for what of a better term) with design foresight because they can’t implement it in code – so they don’t do it. what are we left with; many run of the mill designs, boxed blogs, and ripped off aesthetics – often built by developers.

it’s a real shame, but wouldn’t the web be a wonderful place if designers and coders were one in the same. we would have amazingly gorgeous websites everywhere! designers/developers that have a rapport with one another are very lucky.

By: afhill

afhill — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:16:28 +0000

[...] I’m working on a new project, and after reading What’s in a Name, What’s in a Name Part Two and Elemental Nomenclature, I want to try to set up some semantically-relevant ids for the page elements. [...]

By: wisbin » Blog Archive » Eric’s Archived Thoughts: Elemental Nomenclature

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:13:10 +0000

[...] hat use the same nomenclature. This is, it seems to me, the least I can do. » meyerweb : Archived Thoughts: Elemental Nomenclature OK, let me try…. please bea [...]

By: wisbin » Blog Archive » And all that Malarkey // Naming conventions table

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:00:54 +0000

[...] key // Naming conventions table 1. And all that Malarkey // Naming conventions table 2. http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2004/06/18/elemental-nomenclature/ So what should we name our elements? Here are my suggestions for main structura [...]

By: Ryan Tomayko's Weblog

Ryan Tomayko's Weblog — Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:47:17 +0000

Per Site User Stylesheets
Making User Stylesheets (CSS) useful.

By: mister76

mister76 — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:54:33 +0000

The only advantage of consistant naming is user stylesheets. As long as webmasters don’t name divs “leftsidebar” or something like that (which would defeat the seperation of style and content), it doesn’t matter too too much.

By: digital camera

digital camera — Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:28:02 +0000

Designers should be left to really focus on the look of things and programmers should be left to code.

This would also help to keep html semantically clean and force css spec’s to continue to evolve…

By: Lachlan Hunt

Lachlan Hunt — Mon, 21 Jun 2004 23:30:41 +0000

Hi,
I found that I use several of the common ids listed in andy’s table, such as #container, #header, #footer, and I used to use #maincontent, but have recently changed to #body. My personal site doesn’t yet use these convetions, since it’s still very much under construction, it will do one day.

As for the CSS Signature, I’ll be changing my from #lachy to #www-lachy-id-au. Thanks for the tip about the convetions. However, I’ve also been thinking about applying classes to the body or root element as well. Then, different types of pages in my site could be styled differently. For example, for my blogs, I’m thinking about using:

and for my pages on technical stuff like XHTML, CSS, etc… I’ll be using something like:

I haven’t yet thought of all the classes I’m going to use, nor implemented them yet; and those two may change, but I think the concept is quite good. What do you think?

By: no2.org.uk

no2.org.uk — Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:32:30 +0000

CSS signature
Like the whore I am, I”ve decided to obey my herd instinct and emulate Eric”s CSS signature.

By: Malarkey

Malarkey — Mon, 21 Jun 2004 06:55:51 +0000

Eric, I think that it should be noted that I am *not* proposing a standard style-sheet or document structure, just that if a designer includes a certain element on a page, to call it a specific name. How this can be perceived as ‘creativity stifling’ is beyond me.

You have prompted me to rethink my logic and add a new column at http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/whats_in_a_name_pt2.html

By: just to let you know

just to let you know — Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:31:19 +0000

CSS naming conventions
Funny that articles on Meyerweb and StuffAndNonsense around CSS naming conventions are making a round at the moment, as I reallised the other day that I seemed to have developed my own weird naming standards (or at least that’s what…

By: heath

heath — Sun, 20 Jun 2004 08:28:58 +0000

As I have commented elsewhere, I think a lot of the software design’s ‘best practices’ are lost because most web designers are not trained in software design. Granted that html is not a programming language, but as designers often need to know js, php, etc. those techniques could help immensely. But as html is separated from css the more that both can develop.

The more that html mark-up is standardized, the more coding can be separated from designing. Designers should be left to really focus on the look of things and programmers should be left to code. This would also help to keep html semantically clean and force css spec’s to continue to evolve. I think the more html and css hold hands the more they hold each other back. It’s always hard, but the couple needs to divorce for both to really grow.

I’ve written more on this subject because I am reading a great book on coding (Eric really should join the Amazon associates program so I would link this one for him, the book is called Code Complete by Steve McConnell).

By: CodeBitch

CodeBitch — Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:58:36 +0000

People should just label it for what it is, and yet we still see so many div id="left" things going on. I seem to remember saying something about this two years ago.

By: riccard0

riccard0 — Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:21:17 +0000

Personally, I think that naming conventions are subject to two main issues: 1. Internationalization. As a non native English speaker, I prefer to assign non english names to my IDs and CLASSes, so to better browse through my code. 2. Site structure. There is an universal naming scheme that is capable to include all or even most of the different websites out there? Haven't we yet discussed enough about semantics to start again on a whole new level? In my opinion, naming serves best as a reference for the coder, otherwise, I will be able to use my H1 instead of my DIV ID="Header"!