Hacker News Reader

Comment by Yaggo | Hacker News Reader

<button class="pure-button pure-button-disabled">A Disabled Button</button>

Oh please. Why not just a <button disabled>? So much redundancy and overly-verboseness for nothing.

"Namespacing" your CSS classes would make sense if you were actually composing element's style from multiple frameworks/libraries (vs. programming code), but that's not usually the case with CSS frameworks.

View on HN

I disagree with you.

Have a .button class for styles of the button, font-family, height, width, border-radius, etc. You want _all_ .button elements to share this look and feel.

Then overwrite background colors, border colors etc on a button-primary, button-delete, etc classes.

It makes sense and it works.

My point is that <button> already means a button and can be selected for default styling with 'button' or 'button.delete' selectors (by the framework and by you for overwriting). Ditto for [disabled], etc. (... also, support for multi-class selectors .like.this.and.that landed ages ago, no need for repeating-your repeating-your-class repeating-your-class-names-manually.)

Your argument doesn't work in the majority of cases. Many times a button element can be either a small '.toolbar-button', or a '.widget-button' or a '.principal-button'. Difference sizes, looks and feel, for the same element type.

Please read again what I wrote above. I'm not saying every button should look identical or you shouldn't use classes at all.

It's people like you that produce impossible to maintain css...

It's based on SMACSS, that's why they did it like that. It is a bit verbose though. I forked it so that I could make it a little cleaner. http://smacss.com/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com