|
To me, the CSS class names seem more semantic than the inline CSS. Wy would it matter? Ah, here is an example. Suppose someone making a theme wanted to do something fancy, for example put rounded corners on the question bank. They would need to know the state of the question bank, because they might need to apply different style rules to the bit that stays visible in the two states.
Actually, you already have <div class="questionbankwindow sideblock"> which is fairly semantic. Can't you just either add 'collapsed' as a third class name or not, so you either have
<div class="questionbankwindow sideblock"> or <div class="questionbankwindow sideblock collapsed"> |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sub-task
Resolved
Minor
 |
|
All content on this web site is made available under the GNU General Public License, unless otherwise stated.
The classes I created are non-semantic like bankvisible and quizwhenbankcollapsed - they do not add any semantics since they are bound to the very behaviour of the css properties, so they will just be badly named - keeping the semantics in the HTML and the style in the CSS is the idea of classes, after all. We won't reach there here, just as we do not with the special javascript class added to body (though that one may have technical reasoning).
It does not seem to make any sense to theme that specific CSS, it will just add another reference, making the code harder to read. Where is the benefit?