4 ms·
This feels weird. Classes exist for a reason. When I read the title, I thought about a kind of CSS reset, but what I'm seeing is also a template/grid framework?
by rsoto 6y ago
This feels weird. Classes exist for a reason. When I read the title, I thought about a kind of CSS reset, but what I'm seeing is also a template/grid framework?
The weird part is that by wrapping an article within a section now I'm designing with columns (which btw, it seems there's no way to control them). And section > article turns out to be the suggested semantics for a blog.
It's a nice effort, but what I'd look for in a starter file might not be a uncontrollable grid.
- dhagz 6y agoYeah, if there were a way to have this without the grid stuff, I'd be all for it. But as it is, if I want to use this I'm stuck either ignoring tags (which I may want to use) to avoid the grid stuff, or I'm stuck using a grid system which isn't very controllable. It's cool, but I'll stick to just writing my own, light-on-classes CSS.
- torstenvl 6y agoSeems like it would be awesome if HTML allowed you to set a default element <meta default-element="div"> and then use <.card> as a shorthand for <div class="card"> You could be "classless" to the extent of being semantic and succinct but without having to misappropriate elements.
- err4nt 6y agoIf you want to do this, look into autonomous custom elements, you can make something like `<x-card>` …no class name required!
- VWWHFSfQ 6y agowhy not just write <div class="card">
- airstrike 6y ago<s>Not nearly as cool as <.card>, sorry</s>
- smichel17 6y agoThe yesod web framework's hamlet templates have this, albeit without the default as far as I know. <section .card> compiles to <section class="card">. If you omit the element, it uses div by default so you can use just <.card> if you prefer.
- werdnapk 6y agoOr use a template engine. Slim for example allows you to write just .card
- kitd 6y agoA workaround might be little more than running a sed command on the html sources before bundling.