"Classless" also made my brow furrow when I realized they didn't mean, say, CSS components styled without a bunch of classes (a la Twitter Bootstrap) but rather, it just has no components. It's classless because it only styles some basic html elements.
It seems like it styles more than just the basics, as it gets details, kbd, and a few others that I don’t see around as much.
Besides this isn’t meant to supplant Bootstrap. It evens says so on the site.
That's exactly how I understood it and it sounds useful to me. No need to look up what styles do what, you can just use the standard elements and expect them to look coherent and as expected. E.g. "<header>" is descriptive enough since HTML5 introduced it.
It didn't mean that for me because we've been sharing minimal css files for decades without without calling them frameworks or "classless". Usually when you see a new term, it describes a spin on the old act. If they had also called it a "serverless" CSS framework, I wouldn't have guessed they meant that the CSS file just doesn't make any HTTP requests.
That's my reaction as well... What am I missing? People really forgot that you can write a "reactive" website in pure HTML and that's what it was actually designed for?
This is... not remotely what people mean when they say "reactive". And nobody thinks JS is necessary to get a visual theme that looks nice. CSS and JS frameworks serve radically different purposes.
Or did you mean "responsive" ?
Yes, responsive, sorry.
Yeah, I think "blog theme" is probably the best it can be described.
Also my reaction. If anything the response to this shows developers' adverse reaction (or stylistic deference) to CSS in general. IMO CSS is not that hard to grasp, although my bias/expertise might be getting in the way. There are plenty of CS concepts that are much more complex than understanding selector specificity.
It's like normalize.css[1], unify elements across browsers.