[rsoto]

This feels weird. Classes exist for a reason. When I read the title, I thought about a kind of CSS reset, but what I'm seeing is also a template/grid framework?

The weird part is that by wrapping an article within a section now I'm designing with columns (which btw, it seems there's no way to control them). And section > article turns out to be the suggested semantics for a blog.

It's a nice effort, but what I'd look for in a starter file might not be a uncontrollable grid.

[torstenvl]

Seems like it would be awesome if HTML allowed you to set a default element

    <meta default-element="div">

and then use

    <.card>

as a shorthand for

    <div class="card">

You could be "classless" to the extent of being semantic and succinct but without having to misappropriate elements.

[smichel17]

The yesod web framework's hamlet templates have this, albeit without the default as far as I know. <section .card> compiles to <section class="card">. If you omit the element, it uses div by default so you can use just <.card> if you prefer.

[err4nt]

If you want to do this, look into autonomous custom elements, you can make something like `<x-card>` …no class name required!

[kitd]

A workaround might be little more than running a sed command on the html sources before bundling.

[VWWHFSfQ]

why not just write <div class="card">

[airstrike]

<s>Not nearly as cool as <.card>, sorry</s>

[werdnapk]

Or use a template engine. Slim for example allows you to write just .card

[dhagz]

Yeah, if there were a way to have this without the grid stuff, I'd be all for it. But as it is, if I want to use this I'm stuck either ignoring tags (which I may want to use) to avoid the grid stuff, or I'm stuck using a grid system which isn't very controllable.

It's cool, but I'll stick to just writing my own, light-on-classes CSS.