I have to create a primary heading component, below is my markup along with CSS classes. I'm following BEM naming convention for class name.
I have h1 element consists of two spans. One span for main heading text, and second span for sub heading text. The main and sub are variations of my heading.
I have not specified the Element class (Which could be heading-primary__text ) and i have directly attached modifier classes to span elements.
<h1 class="heading-primary">
<span class="heading-primary--main">Video Background Option</span>
<span class="heading-primary--sub">One Page Parallax</span>
</h1>
Is that a right way to follow BEM methodology without specifying Elements classes & attaching Block's modifiers classes to Elements(span)? Because i don't need elements classes.
Is there any alternate?
While this is subjective, and as per the convinience of the project . i'd recommend doing something like this- as you already have a header-primary_text element class
<h1 class="heading-primary">
<span class="heading-primary_text">Video Background Option</span>
<!--create a modifier -->
<span class="heading-primary_text--sub">One Page Parallax</span>
</h1>
In this way you can make the sub a modifier class for the subtext.
More info can be seen here https://en.bem.info/methodology/quick-start/#modifier
Hope this helps :)
I think there is a much simpler way to do this just using basic HTML. You only want to have one h1 per page and since you said that your second span of your h1 is a "subheading" I feel like you would be way better off marking that one as an h2 instead of two spans of different context within one h1 heading! Always good to use the built in benefits of HTML first if you can.
No, it is not the right way. You cannot use block (or element) modifier alone on the HTML tag without specifying the block (or element) class itself.
Please refer to BEM documentation here: https://en.bem.info/methodology/quick-start/#modifier
A modifier can't be used alone From the BEM perspective, a modifier
can't be used in isolation from the modified block or element. A
modifier should change the appearance, behavior, or state of the
entity, not replace it.
Here is a code example from the docs:
<!-- Correct. The `search-form` block has the `theme` modifier with the value `islands` -->
<form class="search-form search-form_theme_islands">
<input class="search-form__input">
<button class="search-form__button">Search</button>
</form>
<!-- Incorrect. The modified class `search-form` is missing -->
<form class="search-form_theme_islands">
<input class="search-form__input">
<button class="search-form__button">Search</button>
</form>
You mentioned that you don't need an element class, this topic is also covered in BEM docs
https://en.bem.info/methodology/faq/#why-include-the-block-name-in-modifier-and-element-names
semuzaboi's suggestion sounds as a good alternative to me.
First of all, elements are specified after two __ like block__element_modifier.
Secondly, yes. Blocks may not have any elemenets inside, but rather have modifiers (most common case a block with lang modifiers for Internationalization (block_lang_ru))
PS as well as element may not have any modifiers inside. But block can not be nested inside another one. They should be placed inside one directory on the same level.
Related
I have the following HTML code, I tend to have a 3 code project identifier at the start
<span class="abc-user-overview__header__title">
<span class="abc-user-overview__header__title__name">
{{ name }}
<span class="abc-user-overview__header__active">true</span>
</span>
Although the 'name' element is a child of title, how strict does the naming convention have to be? As I think abc-user-overview__header__title__name is too long and would prefer to drop the __title, giving me:
<span class="abc-user-overview__header__title">
<span class="abc-user-overview__header__name">
{{ name }}
<span class="abc-user-overview__header__active"true</span>
</span>
Is this valid and acceptable BEM?
Sadly your code is not valid according to BEM convention. This is the official name structure block-name__elem-name_mod-name_mod-val.
Here is your code with valid BEM naming:
<span class="abc-user-overview__title">
<span class="abc-user-overview__name">{{ name }}</span>
<span class="abc-user-overview__status abc-user-overview__status_active">true</span>
</span>
Few tips:
Avoid naming your blocks according to their content. Try to be generic for blocks that can be reused. For example, let us have a block that represents a list content. On one of the pages we may display News .news-list, but on other we may display Products, so reusing block with name .news-list with Products inside isnt very nice. In this case a simple class like .list will be enough.
If something can be reused, make it block, not an element.
For boolean modifiers, the value is not included in the name.
Full documentation and great examples can be found in the official website: https://en.bem.info/methodology/naming-convention/#naming-rules
Those names aren't too long. Sometimes when names get too long it's because you've got too much going on in that page. When I see that in angular (for example) I consider extracting components, then you can chop off the block and half the element name from the existing css classes and replace with a shorter block name. it makes the parent component so much easier to read when you move a lot of unrelated complexity to a different component. Good candidates for this could include
mobile menus
containers (anything with responsive widths, padding or icons to collapse or expand some region)
footers
complicated widgets that show some stats
any repeated card with a title, photo, description and hyperlink.
Some of these components might be useful for the whole application, or maybe just for that page. Etc.
I understand from reading similar posts that the <section> tag in html is meant for semantic and organizational purposes. I was wondering, however, why using the <div> tag with a class attribute wouldn't have a similar effect.
(e.g. <div class = "SectionOne">)
Given these two methods, I could refer to each of them in CSS by using their respective names:
Section
{
color = white;
}
or
.SectionOne
{
color = white;
}
Personally, I think the second method allows for greater versatility in webpage design and I don't see many advantages to the new HTML5 feature. Would anyone care to clear this up for me?
section is usually used for having article like contents whereas div are meant to combine various block elements in order to style them differently. The main difference is just semantics.
Refer https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-div-and-section-3468001 for derails
Let me know if you require any further help
The <section> tag defines sections in a document, such as chapters, headers, footers, or any other sections of the document.
Whereas: The <div> tag defines a division or a section in an HTML document. The tag is used to group block-elements to format them with CSS.
Maybe you mean section and not Section. Anyway, the semantics is a thing and the selectors another. In CSS it is better to select using classes than tag selectors, because you gain a lot in terms of versatility. So you are right from this point of view. Semantics is another matter: is not given by a class. Even if you give a "section" class to a div, you are not giving semantic meaning to a div.
<div> is simply a generic block-level element which predates the later, semantically-named, document-related elements which arrived with HTML5, such as:
<header>
<nav>
<main>
<section>
<aside>
<footer>
When dividing up a document into its anatomical parts, you could still use:
<div class="header">
<div class="section">
etc.
But... you don't need to anymore.
Of course, even if you still use all of the above in your document you might still want to add other block-level elements and when you do... <div> is general purpose.
I have a <p>Example string</p> With some text inside. I want to use css to search for a word within that paragraph.
I know this is possible if you have e.g. All you have to do then is:
a[href*="test"]{}
But when I try to do this with my paragraph I can't seem to get it to work. I've tried:
[p*="string"]{}
p[*="string"]{}
The short answer is NO, this is not possible using CSS only, what you are using is element[attr=val] selector which only selects elements with that particular attribute with that specific values. You need to use jQuery or Javascript with a regex to track the pattern and apply styles to its elements.
On the other hand you can create custom attributes with a prefix of data- so for example you can do something like
<p data-custom="Holder Text">Want to change this</p>
<p data-custom="Holder Text">Want to change this</p>
<p data-custom="Holder Text 2">Dont Touch This</p>
p[data-custom="Holder Text"] {
color: red;
}
Demo
But again, this won't make sense here, you can simply assign the classes if you are aware what elements need to be changed.
You cannot this using CSS only, however you can check this blog post about how to achieve this using jQuery.
Basically you should use :contains selector:
$("p:contains('John')")
I am trying to learn fundamentals of html and markings.
I want to create an anchor which containes two lines of information.
first line: the name of the link
second line: short explanation
e.g.
<a href='#'>
<span>Studies</span>
<span class="alt">-Information about studies</span>
</a>
Is this correct?
How should the following (2nd span) be modified if necessary?
Thank you
PS. Both lines need to be surrounded with span for css-styling.
First off, don't rule out using a br tag. This is a semantically-appropriate place for a br tag (forcing a hard break inside a line or paragraph of text). Plus, if you use a br tag, it may no longer be necessary to put either of the two lines of text in separate tags, unless you want to style them differently.
<a href='#'>
Studies<br/>
-Information about studies
</a>
Second, try viewing the HTML with stylesheets disabled (I do this in Firefox by pressing ctrl-shift-S, with a little help from the Web Developer extension). Is the browser able to render the content in an easy-to-read way based solely on the HTML provided? To some extent, the more readable the "unstyled" content appears, the more semantically-correct the HTML is.
Given that the second line of text seems to be secondary to the first line (a subtitle, not as important, possibly redundant or not entirely essential), putting the first line in a strong tag or putting the second line in a small tag are a couple ways to establish the relative importance of the two lines, if you wish to do so.
<a href='#'>
<strong>Studies</strong><br/>
-Information about studies
</a>
<a href='#'>
Studies<br/>
<small>-Information about studies</small>
</a>
There's some room for personal preference here. These are just two approaches.
It may be a little bit of a stretch using a small tag in a case like this, but it's not entirely inappropriate. A small tag is typically used for "fine print", attribution, disclaimers, or side comments. It doesn't semantically mean the text is small, but it does tend to be used for content that's secondary to something else (that clarifies something else). It should though only be used for text that's short in length.
And a strong tag doesn't have to be styled bold. In fact, that's the whole point of semantic markup: It doesn't specify or imply how the content will be styled; all it does is offer a hint to the meaning or context of the content. A strong tag can reasonably be given a style of font-weight:normal.
In order to achieve that those are in separate lines, try using the <div> tag instead. You can still specify a class for styling, the only difference is that <div>s are block-elements; each of them is rendered on a separate line. Here's the modified version of your code:
<a href='#'>
Studies
<div class="alt">-Information about studies</div>
</a>
Another, slightly more preferable way of doing that is by styling the elements to be block-elements. That can be used by setting the CSS display property to block. Something like:
<a href='#'>
Studies
<span class = "alt block">-Information about studies</span>
</a>
(Note that class = "alt block" means the element has both classes alt and block, and note also that the first <span> is removed because there's no need to style that node with anything).
CSS:
.block {
display: block;
}
Hope that helped you!
I have a repeater of div's that look a little bit like this:
<div class="header_div">
<!-- Content -->
</div>
I want to have the background color of the divs change based on a dynamic property of the content of the div (lets call it the category), but I still want the "header_div" style to be assgined in cases where I dont have a css class for that category. Whats the best way of doing this?
The best way I can think of is to render the category as the "id" of the div and apply styles based on the id, but that strikes me as really messy - standards dictate that the id should uniquenly identify the element on the page and there will definitely be repeats of each category.
The simple answer would be to use multiple classes for the <div> so that
<div class="header_div header_red">
<!-- Content -->
</div>
<div class="header_div header_green">
<!-- Content -->
</div>
You're correct about the need for IDs to be unique.
There's nothing stopping you from specifying more than one value per class attribute - just separate them with a space.
<div class="header_div category">
<!-- Content -->
</div>
Just be careful to check what happens when both classes specify different values for the same style - I can't say whether the first or the second would take precedence.
You could supply multiple styles for the div class:
<div class="header_div mystyle">
<!-- Content -->
</div>
I believe styles declared later in the declaration override earlier ones. As long as you ensure your custom styles "shadow" those of the header-div, you can always include the header-div element, and it will only have an effect when any secondary style is absent (or empty).
If it's going to be used repeatedly on the page, it should be a class.
If it's unique on the page, use an id.
Without knowing more about your content, can you not use one of the header tags (<h1> etc)?
You are correct, IDs should be unique and if you want to use the same style more than once then use a class.
You can't have duplicate IDs so if you had multiple divs of the same category you would have an issue. Classes should be used when the style needs to be applied for 1 or more items on a single page.
Why not assign the class on databinding of the div based on the category? As your repeater is getting bound, find your div for the item you are binding and assign it.
You could also substitute the div for an asp:Panel and use it's onDataBinding method. It should look exactly like your div.