What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

Unsurprisingly, we have two tags describing specificity in CSS rules: and , each with just over a dozen questions.

I'm going to normalize everything to one tag, but which do I keep? The former is a bit of a dilemma as "specificity" could refer to anything, but so far all questions with it are about specificity in CSS rules. The latter is clearer and therefore safer, but based on what I just said about the former (as well as some discussions about compound tags), would it be fine to just use the former without the css- prefix instead?

EDIT: based on animuson's suggestion, I'm keeping the tag.

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Sompuperoo, Shadow Wizard, Martijn Pieters, ChrisF, Monica Cellio Jul 22 at 15:32

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question pertains only to a specific site in the Stack Exchange Network. Questions on Meta Stack Exchange should pertain to our network or software that drives it as a whole, within the guidelines defined in the help center. You should ask this question on the meta site where your concern originated." – Sompuperoo, Shadow Wizard, Martijn Pieters, ChrisF, Monica Cellio
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

    
Also is there a general question that definitively covers situations of deciding between one of [X] and [X-Y] tags where Y may not always only pertain to X in the future? All I can find are discussions that haven't gone anywhere. –  BoltClock's a Unicorn Feb 4 '12 at 4:01
3  
I would say specificity suffers a noted lack of... well, specificity. <rimShot/> –  Andrew Barber Feb 4 '12 at 4:05

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

I say merge them into . Specificity in itself isn't "specific" to CSS, in that it's just the practice of being specific. It just happens to be most commonly associated with CSS and it's statements when referred to in the programming community. Since it could, theoretically, be related to other things in programming, either now or in the future, I think not including CSS in it is a better choice.


Just because I was curious, a Google search for "programming specificity" brought up this:
Introducing Generalized Specificity in Logic Programming

There's also this JavaScript question which is tagged with specificity, which is only indirectly related to CSS.

share|improve this answer
    
[specificity] would end up like [selectors] then, with multiple meanings, uses and being dependent on context :/ What you say makes more sense to me as a reason for keeping [css-specificity] instead... –  BoltClock's a Unicorn Feb 4 '12 at 4:26
    
I disagree, I only see the one meaning that stands out: being specific. I think the same meaning would apply no matter what other topic might arise that it could relate too. The word wasn't created to accommodate CSS, it already existed and people just used it to describe how to write CSS, by being specific. It's also not an extremely general word that would be picked up for random uses, like wall. –  animuson Feb 4 '12 at 4:34
    
Oh... I was confused at first, but now I understand. Well, then. –  BoltClock's a Unicorn Feb 4 '12 at 4:38

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .