Feed
well... interesting... but i don;t think you offered enough information on this methodology ... I'd go for BEM for css, its usefull when you use sass or less, it keeps your classes organized. But DRY on html... so you;re telling me i should make a template for every element i need on a page? NO! i won't do that. i don;t want to make my application harder to read/modify. But i think this DRY thing is usefull but you have to determine what arhitecture your application will have before using it.
NOTE: i know this isn;t important, but, when using ems or rems, write the fallback for them in pixels, just for older browsers, antic ones and maybe safary
Almost without exception, I find it dead simple to keep HTML DRY with either Java or PHP, using the Composite View pattern. 'Tis exceedingly rare that I find cause to wet my HTML.
On occasion, I specifically choose to ignore my CSS validator and be intentionally less DRY with CSS in order to pander to the less machine-like aspects of me and any other humans on my team.
I may be less DRY with CSS in order to promote a looser coupling of HTML subviews. This motive is especially relevant when there is uncertainty about the ongoing evolution or even existence of some subviews.
I ain't sayin' I recommend going extremely unDRY with CSS, but I am willing to repeat a style property (or six) for the sake of visually organizing the properties according to tags (rare), classes (less rare), or ids (least rare). Over time, I may elect to refactor the CSS declarations to make them DRYer, but not always.
Less DRYness in CSS is especially true of late addition elements to long-established pages or temporary elements that I know beforehand will have a very short lifespan.
I take my HTML very DRY, like my martinis. My CSS is shaken and has more vermouth.