![semantic ui browser default select dropwdown semantic ui browser default select dropwdown](https://media.geeksforgeeks.org/wp-content/uploads/20210716135707/22.gif)
Either one could be completely replaced partially or wholly, separate of each other. HTML was made for hypertext and semantic content structure and CSS was made for appearances. When I first discovered, I realized the point of CSS and its power. It's also made it much easier on teams I've worked with because the designers could quickly dig into the styles to make tweaks in a central location (single source of truth) without rummaging through our entire codebase to modify appearances of things (separation of concerns). For me, semantic class names have lead to very maintainable websites/apps that I've been able to completely redesign without touching much of the HTML, which is usually much harder to change in larger dyanmic applications. One of the best libraries to do this currently is styled-components ( ).Ĭonsider reading. The class names of elements in Google's homepage for example reads like 'tsf-p', `oq`, `gsb` etc. Which is a fine thing, but we can also use purely visual classes - like `bg-red bold border-solid` if it helps (and it does. And as developers, forcing ourselves to find semantic meaning for every element we write leads us to component-oriented CSS like BEM. and aria tags like role.ĬSS classnames are purely for the developer's benefit. What we instead need are semantic tags like article, section etc. The reason we need semantics in HTML is to make the markup accessible for screen-readers, and no screenreader considers the class name of an element when reading it out. The concept of 'semantic classnames', even if propagated by w3.org has caused as much grief as the concept of 'separation of concerns' between HTML & CSS fad. Writing semantic HTML and the coupling you are referring to are completely orthogonal as long as you are using a tool like Sass / postCSS / etc to author your CSS. > If you try to keep visual information out of your HTML, you end up authoring stylesheets designed to nimbly navigate your DOM structure to precisely target elements to style in a way that makes your CSS extremely coupled to the particular site you are building.Īs for this technical argument, it's flatly untrue.
![semantic ui browser default select dropwdown semantic ui browser default select dropwdown](https://reactjsexample.com/content/images/2021/09/semantic-ui-react.jpg)
The latter, aside from sparing your brain endless visual noise, makes it instantly clear how the html maps to the page elements. That is, setting aside technical arguments about re-usability for a moment, it's disastrous to have to look at a large codebase in this style:
![semantic ui browser default select dropwdown semantic ui browser default select dropwdown](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/17446836/83401481-7bbc4200-a422-11ea-9414-7ffbc70aa507.png)
Strongly disagree, and the primary reason is that semantic HTML makes your source and stylesheets readable and easy to navigate and change for that reason. Also, your HTML file is likely smaller too when using semantic classes. But when enabling compression, the stylesheets using mixins turn out to be smaller (see. Of course, your CSS file becomes a lot bigger. The likelihood of semantic names having conflicts is much smaller. I always find myself in a naming conflict at some point. When using generic names like "button", "big", "small", etc. When you change the visual aspect of an element, you go to the stylesheet and don't go adding/removing classes from the content layer (HTML).Ģ. True, it makes your HTML and CSS very coupled, but it does provide you with a true clean separation of content and presentation.ġ. I find that SASS mixins provide the same reusability as classes but in a much cleaner way. This leads to writing what I call "library-style" CSS, where you are almost trying to build your own Bootstrap or similar something that you could actually use on multiple projects if you wanted.Ī class like "download-book" is not very useful if you have multiple buttons in a project that are meant to look the same way and not all of them trigger a book download. Your HTML documents are already coupled to your project, so rather than writing CSS that's coupled to that HTML, I've found it to work much better to author CSS from a mindset that the CSS knows nothing about the document it's trying to style. If you try to keep visual information out of your HTML, you end up authoring stylesheets designed to nimbly navigate your DOM structure to precisely target elements to style in a way that makes your CSS extremely coupled to the particular site you are building. These days I'm quite convinced trying to author your markup such that you can redesign a site by applying a different stylesheet has the dependencies backwards. I used to think this way until reading this article by Nicolas Gallagher: