Menu icon Foundation
Client Complaint about .row class?

I've never run into this until recently when a client raised complaint that the class .row is not descriptive or beneficial if the code is turned over to other developers in the future.

I've been using class .row for years, so I'm just curious what anyone else's response would be to this from a semantics perspective? Or if it matters?

Thank you,
Lindsey

rowclass

I've never run into this until recently when a client raised complaint that the class .row is not descriptive or beneficial if the code is turned over to other developers in the future.

I've been using class .row for years, so I'm just curious what anyone else's response would be to this from a semantics perspective? Or if it matters?

Thank you,
Lindsey

Bob Sawyer over 4 years ago

Methinks your client is wound a bit too tightly.

".row" is absolutely descriptive and beneficial in terms of the purpose it serves, particularly in the context of Foundation's framework.

Rafi Benkual over 4 years ago

It's a little odd since the row classes are wrappers of structural elements, but not the structure themselves.

You can use semantic markup with Sass in Foundation which provides a cleaner layout structure (separating html structure from CSS). Here's how: http://zurb.com/university/lessons/42

Piet Bos over 4 years ago

What I usually do is add another class in addition to row, so for example
<div class="wrapper row">