attribute radio buttons class names incorrect?

[torvista]

zencart/includes/modules/attributes.php

Lines 300 to 307 in a28f1e0

	case '0':
	$tmp_radio .= zen_draw_radio_field('id[' . $products_options_id . ']', $products_options_value_id, $selected_attribute, 'id="' . $inputFieldId . '" ' . $data_properties . $field_disabled) . '<label class="attribsRadioButton zero" for="' . $inputFieldId . '">' . $products_options_details . '</label><br>' . "\n";
	break;
	case '1':
	$tmp_radio .= zen_draw_radio_field('id[' . $products_options_id . ']', $products_options_value_id, $selected_attribute, 'id="' . $inputFieldId . '" ' . $data_properties . $field_disabled) . '<label class="attribsRadioButton one" for="' . $inputFieldId . '">' . (!empty($products_options->fields['attributes_image']) ? zen_image(DIR_WS_IMAGES . $products_options->fields['attributes_image'], '', '', '') . ' ' : '') . $products_options_details . '</label><br>' . "\n";
	break;
	case '2':
	$tmp_radio .= zen_draw_radio_field('id[' . $products_options_id . ']', $products_options_value_id, $selected_attribute, 'id="' . $inputFieldId . '" ' . $data_properties . $field_disabled) . '<label class="attribsRadioButton two" for="' . $inputFieldId . '">' . $products_options_details . (!empty($products_options->fields['attributes_image']) ? '<br>' . zen_image(DIR_WS_IMAGES . $products_options->fields['attributes_image'], '', '', '') : '') . '</label><br>' . "\n";

It appears these and the subsequent clauses are missing an underscore/should not have a space, to make the class name reflect the clause:

[drbyte]

Interesting discovery.
Digging further, I see that it's been that way since at least v1.5.0.
And there's no CSS rule defined for it in any core CSS files.

[drbyte]

That said, I'm not sure it needs changing, since one can simply combine the two classes into one selector in a CSS file in order to target the combination.
ie:

.attribsRadioButton.one {
    font-weight: bold;
}

[torvista]

Seems incorrect to have simple classes like "one" etc. that have no obvious relation to anything/no hint of function or use.

[lat9]

Seems incorrect to have simple classes like "one" etc. that have no obvious relation to anything/no hint of function or use.

Seems, IMO, is the operative word! If this was newly-minted code, I would request that the class-name be more descriptive. Since those classes have been in-core for 12+ years, some site-specific CSS might be using those classes (as @drbyte) described above and I'll suggest keeping them.

Update: Perhaps a simple addition to the docs to identify what meaning those classes convey?