|
|
|
|
|
by jozzy-james
1477 days ago
|
|
> We've done this since the '90s. no, we really didn't. tho i'll agree that utility classes have been a thing for longer than tailwind/bootstrap/tachyons/pico/etc have existed > mix semantics with presentation there is nothing semantic about class names: nothing, zero, zilch - using IDs are even worse due to specificity, with none of the "semantic" benefit. focus on the correct top level wrappers part of me wonders about the extent of what HN commenters actually do on the web regarding styles, or if they just slap together some homogenous web app or static site where its rather easy to not have a design team needing flexibility on every little thing. case in point, our main "button" has about 15 different base variants (that *3 currently) depending on context, not counting the interaction states. |
|