Got it. So this would be more of a hybrid approach and clears up that question on naming granularity. Give the "component" a logical name and use the utility cl

Got it. So this would be more of a hybrid approach and clears up that question on naming granularity. Give the "component" a logical name and use the utility classes for the component's entities. That makes a lot more sense to me. I didn't realize those child entities were the things people were giving names to. CSS has fairly rich ancestry rules, so I just assumed people use them. Thanks for taking the time to clarify that for me. It does indeed change my perception on utility classes.