Open tomByrer opened 8 years ago
1+
Hey @tomByrer -- I agree with namespacing being a good idea for semantic understanding. My biggest concern with this is that it would be a breaking change to the previous workflow and would affect everyone who has already implemented the library. The question here is -- is that tradeoff worth it?
1+ Another advantage, it will ease the code. for example
[class*="cssgram-"] {
position: relative;
}
[class*="cssgram-"]:before,
[class*="cssgram-"]:after {
content: '';
display: block;
height: 100%;
width: 100%;
top: 0;
left: 0;
position: absolute;
pointer-events: none;
}
[class*="cssgram-"] > img {
width: 100%;
z-index: 1;
}
[class*="cssgram-"]:before {
z-index: 2;
}
[class*="cssgram-"]:after {
z-index: 3;
}
@una Could keep the old class names, & make *.prefix.css|scss` files. @Effeilo good ideas
@Effeilo I really like what you did there -- it would reduce redundant code. This is definitely swaying me toward the prefixed version
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
gulpfile
Could prefix with
cssgram-
also, less clear, but helps in finding this repo.