3 ms·

All these examples of "scaling CSS" tends to end with "don't write CSS". Relying on HTML attributes to describe presentation could have its neat uses, but sugg

All these examples of "scaling CSS" tends to end with "don't write CSS". Relying on HTML attributes to describe presentation could have its neat uses, but suggesting it as a new generic paradigm that everybody should jump on regardless of problem space is not the way to go. HTML is not the escape hatch out of CSS. The main issue is that it's just not better than a class soup of Tailwind classes. It maybe a bit more readable, but if you stuff a DIV with endless `data-junk` then it will be just as bloated as the rest of these specifications if used without care and if you avoid writing CSS it will be pretty bloated.

tannhaeuser 2y ago
> HTML is not the escape hatch out of CSS If anything, CSS is kind of an escape hatch out of HTML/SGML attributes which were specifically introduced for attaching any meaningful info to text nodes not displayed as such to the reader. This is especially evident if you compare the enormous amount of extensions and added non-type-checked ad-hoc syntax to CSS with the relative lack of HTML evolution. The only reason appears to be that HTML was organisationally locked in a W3C process for such a long time, while CSS could be easily extended. Attributes are used for rendering details all the time with the original concept of markup. The idea that you need a special syntax and separate item-value space that's neither here nor there, like CSS is, when organising item-value assignments is the entire point of attributes and even hard-code a vague structure/presentation dichotomy that's then up for interpretation for like 30 years is beyond absurd. SGML, from before 1986, can already assign attributes (so called link attributes) based on context-dependent rules much like CSS.