On Tue 13 Mar 2012, Kake L Pugh kake@earth.li wrote:
On Tue 13 Mar 2012, Janet McKnight janetmck@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Looks good to me (my CSS is out-of-date -- I'm assuming classes with ':' in are generally understood by browsers?).
I was hoping someone would tell me if this isn't the case :) I'm now thinking though that actually it would probably be safer to use underscores instead, since colons do have special meaning in stylesheets.
I've looked it up & it appears you can't use colons unless you escape them out (which will get ugly):
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#characters
Aside: Owen has observed that there are two (or possibly more) different types of category: 'is X' (eg 'Cafes') and 'has X' (eg 'Baby Changing Facilities').
Yep. On RGL, the former are plural ("Category Pubs") and the latter are singular ("Category Beer Garden"). This wasn't entirely on purpose, it's just the way things mostly turned out, so I decided to make it a deliberate policy (albeit an unstated one) for the sake of consistency.
It seems like a good policy, but does this mean that we'd have to use "Baby Changing Facility" (singular) as it's a "has:" category not an "is:" category? That looks odd to me as the phrase usually appears in the plural.
On the other hand, we could then differentiate between the use of 'Cafes' to mean 'is a cafe' (eg G&Ds) and 'has a cafe' (eg Waterstones). If we cared.
I'm not sure we do care - does this distinction really matter in a practical sense?
Probably not. :-}
[Goth/Gay etc]
Let's wait a bit and see if anyone else has an opinion. I have put a note in my diary to sort it out in a few weeks if it proves uncontroversial.
That's very organised! Thank you. :-)
Jx