3 ms·
I agree with the article, almost to the letter. This hole "debacle" could have been avoided if Nicole Sullivan had simply called this tool "OO-CSS check" rathe
by tjogin 15y ago
I agree with the article, almost to the letter.
This hole "debacle" could have been avoided if Nicole Sullivan had simply called this tool "OO-CSS check" rather than "CSSLint". Then I'd have no problem with it at all. If you like and apply the OO-CSS method, then clearly this tool can be of some use.
If you, on the other hand, have never heard of OO-CSS, or just disagree with that method, then CSSLint becomes crazy talk, absolutely bat shit crazy talk.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- tjogin 15y agoNicole Sullivan: http://www.stubbornella.org/ http://www.stubbornella.org/
- andrewl-hn 15y agoIs there something wrong with OOCSS? I remeber a number of great talks Nicole gave about it a while back and I can't recall if there were any objections to it at the time.
- pygy_ 15y agoIt is one effective CSS method, not the only CSS methododolgy. From the introduction of lint's man page: "The lint utility attempts to detect features of the named C program files that are likely to be bugs, to be non-portable, or to be wasteful." The recommendations singled out by the article go beyond these rules to delve into opinions about CSS best practices. The CSS Lint name is thus IMO misleading. It would be better called OO-CSS Lint.