Thank you. The url should be correct now.

Element classes and ids can definitely hold semantic value, and I use a meaningful nomenclature whenever possible because that helps a great deal when maintenance comes into play.

Let’s put microformats aside for a moment, as they really are something “special”. I fully agree with your argument that a meaningful nomenclature is necessary for maintenance – I wrote this too. But this is a kind of “semantics” to improve readability of the code to the developer. There is no change in the semantic of the content for the reader. These are two different things and your argument is misunderstood quite often - to the detriment of CSS frameworks. Also: projects like YAML and YUI Grids have meaningful ID and Class names and furthermore the framework user can add its own.

Having knowledge of a framework prior to understanding the underlying technology can in fact result in a detriment for the designer.

At this point we are closer than you think. As I wrote in the essay, quality requires more than understanding the usage of a framework - it requires CSS expertise. But again, this is not a disadvantage of CSS frameworks because the limiting factor in this case is not the framework but the lack of know-how of the developer. Without using a CSS framework, the same developer wouldn’t create better webpages.

I feel that my point about beginners relying on CSS frameworks was taken a bit out of context. What I explained in my article that a common issue with frameworks and beginners is that the designer will attach himself or herself to the attributes of the framework itself as opposed to the technology. This can be limiting should the framework not be available for a different project. Having knowledge of a framework prior to understanding the underlying technology can in fact result in a detriment for the designer.

All in all your article is very comprehensive, and I appreciate your including bits of my past article!