如果我更喜欢语义命名,那么是否应该使用任何 CSS 框架和网格方法?
如果我更喜欢语义命名,那么我不应该使用任何 CSS 框架和网格方法吗?
网格方法和徒手方法哪种更好?
即使对于经验丰富的 CSS 开发人员来说,是否有任何 CSS 框架真的可以节省时间并制作语义代码?
许多 CSS 框架在静态 PSD 2 XHTML+CSS 转换和 wordpress/drupal/joomla 主题开发中很流行。
我们能否使 CSS XHTML 开发像使用 CSS 框架一样更快,但不使用 CSS 网格框架?
是什么让 CSS 框架的开发变得更快,而我们没有框架就无法做到这一点?
If I prefer semantic naming then shouldn't i use any CSS Framework and grid approach?
Which approach is better Grid or Freehand?
Is any CSS Frameworks really can save time and make semantic code even for Experienced CSS developer?
Many CSS Frameworksd are popular in static PSD 2 XHTML+CSS conversion and in wordpress/drupal/joomla theme development.
Can we make CSS XHTML development as faster as with CSS frameworks but without using CSS Grid Frameworks?
What makes development with CSS frameworks faster which we can't do without frameworks?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问,欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论,获取更多帮助,或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱,如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论,将不能在第一时间通知您!
发布评论
评论(1)
语义命名的类是我特别讨厌的,所以我采用的方法是使用 960 网格系统 和 Sass。网格系统减少了我创建布局所花费的时间,而 Sass 允许我使用 mixins 来模拟继承。类似这样的:
在此示例中,
#main-content
继承了.grid_19
的属性,它是一个宽度为 750px(19 列)且带有语义 id 的 div。当然,我必须调整网格系统的 CSS 才能将其与 Sass 一起使用,但一旦制作完成,我就可以重用其声明,而不必使用其非语义类名。我没有尝试过任何其他 CSS 框架或网格系统。我更喜欢网格系统而不是徒手做,因为它更容易、更快。是什么让 CSS 框架的开发速度更快?嗯,已经完成了。我不需要重新发明威尔。 :)
Semantically named classes are a particular pet-peeve of mine, so the approach I adopted was using 960 Grid System and Sass. The grid system reduces the time I spend creating the layout while Sass allows me to simulate inheritance by using mixins. Something like:
In this example,
#main-content
inherits the properties of.grid_19
, it's a div with 750px of width (19 columns) with a semantic id. Sure I had to adapt the grid system's CSS to use it with Sass, but once it was made I can reuse its declarations without having to use its non-semantic class names.I didn't tried any other CSS framework or grid system. I prefer grid systems over doing it by freehand because it's easier and faster. What makes development with CSS frameworks faster? Well, it's already done. I don't need to reinvent the weel. :)