Re: maincss.css question

Posted by Adrian Crum on Jan 13, 2007; 1:36am
URL: http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/maincss-css-question-tp176368p176373.html

Now that I know that that section of the css file was an experiment, I'd like to
offer my perspective on that particular section.

It seems to me that those product detail styles tie style to content too
closely. In other words, they are pretty content specific.

I see the maincss.css file as being a global "palette" of styles that all
components can draw from. If a particular component needs a style that is
unavailable from the maincss.css file, then those styles should be kept in a
separate style sheet that only that component loads (via
layoutSettings.stylesheets[]).

Am I on the right track?


David E. Jones wrote:

>
> Adrian,
>
> I see, no problem. Yeah, it was a project started and never finished!
>
> You'll probably also notice that there is still some table-based  
> formatting on the productdetail page that is a bit evil (well, and  
> ugly!) and needs to be converted to a CSS-based layout like much of  the
> other stuff was.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> Thanks for the reply! I understand completely what the ID attribute  
>> is for. I was questioning why it was done differently than the rest  
>> of the file.
>>
>>
>> David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>>> This was part of the experimentation with the Zen CSS Garden way  of  
>>> doing CSS. Using id attributes to mark regions and styling  
>>> implicitly  is the way we want to go in the future. If you're  
>>> planning on working  on CSS stuff and you haven't read through The  
>>> Zen of CSS Design, I  highly recommend it. Really cool stuff.  There
>>> is a link to the book  on the Docs & Books page on  ofbiz.apache.org.
>>> -David
>>> On Jan 12, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the maincss.css file, Just below the comment
>>>>
>>>> /* ===== Product Detail Styles ===== */
>>>>
>>>> are six css classes defined using IDs instead of class names. Is  
>>>> there a reason for that?
>>>>
>>>>
>
>