Forum Moderators: not2easy
Try <div class="uniquecontent"> ; )
I could be wrong but it really should make no difference.
If it was something offensive...like sheep$%^*&# then I wouldn't want it there in case anyone was peeking through the source.
We had an custom web app at my old job and someone made a variable name called goatfu$%^&
It went into production and one day the client called and said he got an error... something about goatfu$%^& is not defined..... there were a few meetings after that. I believe the client was pissed.
my opinion, it isn't funny, what about when you get a manual review. Not sure how funny it would be. If it needs to be named spiderbait and that is it's sole purpose then I am guessing there may be more fundamental issues.
Naming it this way is just foolish and a modicum of professionalism should be smacked into him, personal opinion, actual results may vary ;)
To me the Class name or variable name should do some form of self commentation.
I love names like....
class="blue_bar"
class="ridge_border"
class="thin_border"
You don't even have to look at the rest of the code to loosely know what each of these classes will give you.
This type of naming convention will make things easier for others who come along to make changes or add things and will make it easier for you when you come back to a site that hasn't been touched for a while. you won't have to go through things like ....
class="bg1_thry5".... to figure out what they are for.
It might take longer to type out a long name but it is worth it when you come back and revisit it after some time.
I love names like....class="blue_bar"
class="ridge_border"
class="thin_border"
At the risk of spinning off topic - I used to use class names like this until one of my older sites became riddled with class names that were worse than ambiguous, they were downright misleading.
Through various redesigns and restructures class="left_div" was actually in the lower right, class="blue_back" actually produced a gradient, class="float" was actually an absolute, etc., etc.
I try to stay a little less function-specific now-a-days so that I don't have to run through pages and change class names so that they make sense. Although, I never really considered goatfu%# or spiderfood.... ;)
I was not amused, lucky for the author he wasnt around.
If so, renaming the division is the least of your worries. Your biggest risk is improving search-engine algorithms intended to ferret-out systematic spider-baiting.
You've got TWO problems:
1. Your programmer isn't on your team.
2. You've apparently adopted the dubious policy of putting search engines ahead of users.
I'm assuming there's a reason behind his use of the term - it's not just something arbitrary that popped-into his head. He disagrees with your direction.
Probably quite intelligent and maybe has made up a story of "names" to keep himself amused (I assume "him" 'cause girly programmers tend to be more professional and corporate!)
