[nirvdrum]

Got it. So this would be more of a hybrid approach and clears up that question on naming granularity. Give the "component" a logical name and use the utility classes for the component's entities. That makes a lot more sense to me. I didn't realize those child entities were the things people were giving names to. CSS has fairly rich ancestry rules, so I just assumed people use them.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify that for me. It does indeed change my perception on utility classes.

[dimmke]

I still think you're misunderstanding. It sounds like you think that the component has a class and everything flows from that. Like .component-name a {}

The point is that HTML elements don't need to have semantic class names at all. So even the top most element in the component would still use utility classes.