Comments on: Object-Oriented CSS: What, How, and Why

By: GD

GD — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:20:57 +0000

I like the concept of best practice in code re-use, once understood. However, the code doesn’t validate;

# .post.ext img
# { float:rightright;
# margin:0 0 0 10px;
# }

At first I thought this was a new hack, but then hacks aren’t clever. Thought-provoking article, nontheless.

By: tiron

tiron — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:00:01 +0000

Hi, there is “another” object-oriented CSS, on http://dewem.com. There is a “meccano” there, which make a tag as object with CSS style attribute that as xml web-based saved on Server-side. And so you can make even a whole page with it – as is as you make a page with many tags-objects… I understand it so, that Html and Css were automated there. See it yourself…

By: Paresh

Paresh — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:03:49 +0000

Idea is good but but but but not work in IE

By: Sanakan

Sanakan — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:58:32 +0000

If the article has not been re-edited,It may be your browser problems.I am in china too.

By: visus

visus — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:23:39 +0000

It should be called “Object-based CSS”. “Object-oriented” is simply wrong.

By: Reda

Reda — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:44:45 +0000

Absolutely Agree. I too don’t see why you want to call it Object Orianted. Why don’t you call it better CSS design. Sorry but the name “OO CSS” makes no sense.
Of course some CSS’s concepts and structure looks like OO (class definition and property declaration, inhertence in someway) but…come on…stop naming things randomly.
Can you give me an example of “not OO” CSS and explain why it is not?

By: Parker

Parker — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:09:02 +0000

It’s not Object Oriented, it’s Element Oriented at the most.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:59:16 +0000

Good article, something to think about anyway even if I can’t directly use some of the method right now.

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:33:12 +0000

Nice Tut!

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:10:44 +0000

fail