2 ms·

Looking at how web is shaping up in the post-PC era, it seems that the number of bits & bytes going into css (or any asset) is very important. In such a scenari

Looking at how web is shaping up in the post-PC era, it seems that the number of bits & bytes going into css (or any asset) is very important. In such a scenario, I find it more compelling to write those assets with own hands rather than pick up and bulldoze with css resets or frameworks or even normalization. In that sense Bear CSS seems quite a good approach because then probably we're playing just with 'relevant css' of only elements/markup we're actually using in the app. Will definitely give it a try.

andrewfelix 15y ago
>number of bits & bytes going into css (or any asset) is very important. Not to mention a logical hierarchy and grouping based on the content of the site as opposed to what this tool supplies. Eg. LISTS, TYPOGRAPHY etc. (http://bearcss.com/outputCSS/60f6411ee02d14afff6dcc17b1be21db/about.css http://bearcss.com/outputCSS/60f6411ee02d14afff6dcc17b1be21d...) Considering you're going to need to re-arrange the order of all these class/id names, you probably aren't going to save much time with this tool. Having said that it is kind of neat.