I'm guessing by your name that you are the author. In the post you ask: > why does every single Sass/Less framework suggest first in the documentation that you

I'm guessing by your name that you are the author. In the post you ask: > why does every single Sass/Less framework suggest first in the documentation that you should write your HTML like this? Most major Sass grid frameworks encourage semantic HTML and always have. See, for example, Chris Eppstein stating the rationale behind blueprint-sass in 2008: "The biggest advantage of using the "sassified" version of blueprint is that you can use semantic class names again and stop putting "display classes" in your markup." - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/blueprintcss/Yyx9PpZpCRA/wq1nRU5gxloJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/blueprintcss/Yyx9PpZpCRA/wq1... Both Susy (http://susy.oddbird.net/ http://susy.oddbird.net/) and Bourbon Neat (http://neat.bourbon.io/ http://neat.bourbon.io/) follow in this tradition. The Foundation and Bootstrap documentation is targeted at people using the generated CSS, which is why they use non-semantic class names. I'm not familiar with Gumby, but there is no good reason for them to encourage non-semantic class names when using SCSS, although presumably they are assuming their main users are similar to the CSS-only users of Bootstrap and Foundation.