I have been looking into CSS coding methodologies like SMACSS and OOCSS. After doing some homework and inspecting the styles of larger sites (e.g. Google, Facebook) I have noticed very mangled selector names, such as ._50x4 with no little or no stylistic or content semantic meaning.
I am wondering if these larger sites are using some type of name mangling system for their css selector naming? Or has anyone used such insane naming convention?
Well those are classes, not selectors, but if they are working with HUGE team, and one must assume they are, then internal 'helper' classes MIGHT be appropriate.
Classes are not required to be semantic and as long as they are clearly understood by the the whole team there is probably no harm.
I wouldn't encourage it...but then I'm not in charge for a development team for multi-billion $ companies
I have been looking into CSS coding methodologies like SMACSS and OOCSS. After doing some homework and inspecting the styles of larger sites (e.g. Google, Facebook) I have noticed very mangled selector names, such as ._50x4 with no little or no stylistic or content semantic meaning.
I am wondering if these larger sites are using some type of name mangling system for their css selector naming? Or has anyone used such insane naming convention?
Well those are classes, not selectors, but if they are working with HUGE team, and one must assume they are, then internal 'helper' classes MIGHT be appropriate.
Classes are not required to be semantic and as long as they are clearly understood by the the whole team there is probably no harm.
I wouldn't encourage it...but then I'm not in charge for a development team for multi-billion $ companies