• # February 17, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    I have an object called .list {} that has an –inline and –stacked modifier I also have classes that extend the .list {} class called .toolbar, .menu, and .tabs. However, I noticed that twitter bootstrap keeps these as classes as modifiers rather than extending classes like I do. Is the method I am doing wrong, and what would you suggest?

    # February 17, 2013 at 6:56 pm

    This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.

    An extension is more like a sub-module, so I think that Bootstrap do it correctly, as ‘toolbar’, ‘menu’, and ‘tabs’ aren’t sub-modules, but different types of lists.

    # February 17, 2013 at 7:26 pm

    Thank you for the advise. It is much appreciated.

    # February 17, 2013 at 7:27 pm

    Can you also give me an example of sub-modules for future reference.

    # February 17, 2013 at 10:54 pm

    This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.

    Rather than me doing it, check out this in-depth article:

    # February 18, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    I am not finding much on “sub-modules” even in that article. The one problem I see with keeping these as modifiers is that each can have additional modifiers and I am not sure that fits in the B.E.M. structure.

    For example, currently I have

    .list { } and .tab { } which inherits the properties of list.

    tab { } has tab–top and tab–bottom.

    If I did it this way, can I have a sub modifier like

    list list–tab list–tab–top?

    I just want to make sure this is correct?

    # February 18, 2013 at 9:35 pm

    This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.

    Maybe I’ve caused a little bit of confusion with the use of “sub-modules”, as Harry just calls them “elements” (which are descendants of the “block”).

    Also, I think I’m a little confused, as you are using modifier syntax, and claiming that you are actually extending classes?

    Would you mind showing your code?

    In terms of list--tab--top I think you are getting a little confused, as “tab” is the modifier, but “top” is an element (or sub-module), so I think this is what you would be after: list--tab__top.

    # February 18, 2013 at 10:55 pm

    # Current Hierarchy

    Each class below list requires the list object to appear in the class attribute. The reason is, List contains all the main code, like the clearfix, changing the list type, setting the padding, etc. It was setup to be DRY.


    # Bootstrap Hierarchy

    Bootstrap has everything contained in one object. For example, –tabs would be a modifier.

    # The problem

    I know you suggested I follow the bootstrap way of doing this, but really each could be separate objects that inherit the style from list (sort of like Nicole Sullivans idea of a “skin”) The second problem is that classes like tab have their own modifiers like top and bottom.

    Is my thinking correct on this? I just dont know if requiring extra classes follows the oocss and bem methodologies. But I can honestly see some of these classes getting more modifiers in the long wrong.

    # February 18, 2013 at 11:16 pm

    I just wanted to add the markup would look like this for the current solution

    If I make tabs as a modifier, it would appear like this to define its position

    Thanks again for your help. I do appreciate it.

    # February 19, 2013 at 12:43 am

    This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.

    I still don’t know if I follow you 100%, but I think this is what you’re after:

    You would have all of the list styling in .list and the styles that make it look like tabs in .list--tabs. You would then use the following:

    <ul class="list  list--tabs">...</ul>

    This means that the ul has all the styling of .list with the extra changes from .list--tabs. Also, make sure that .list--tabs comes after .list in your style sheet so that the cascade does its thing (naturally taking care of any styles that are being overridden).

    If the “tabs” modifier has its own elements, that only relate to “tabs”, then I would use the following (on the relevant element/s):

    <div class="list--tabs__top">...</div>

    So basically, that is saying that you have a modified list, with a sub-element of “top”. Also, you can clearly see that this “top” element only applies to the “tabs” modification of .list.

    This way, you minimize the replication of styles, and use what you called “skins” to modify core styles.

    Does that make sense?

    # February 19, 2013 at 12:50 am

    Yes. Thank you

    # February 20, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    I think that my reasoning when doing this originally was correct. Here is an interesting read. I believe the same person wrote inuit.css. I have no idea why bootstrap is making –pills and –tabs modifiers and trapping additional options in. Tabs should be an object from the .nav abstraction with its own modifiers for positions.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.