11–20 of 149 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I based Picnic on! Read on the "Some love" in the last section, it's also a great library
That section says "inspiration from". Seems different from "based on". How is your project different from purecss?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I based Picnic on! Read on the "Some love" in the last section, it's also a great library
That section says "inspiration from". Seems different from "based on". How is your project different from purecss?
There are some other smaller differences:
- The just looks nice with Picnic in Firefox.
- Picnic relies in class combinations, while Pure relies in long specific class names. Compare Test vs Test
- Pure CSS is surely more solid; it's been created by Yahoo and tested by thousands of webs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That section says "inspiration from". Seems different from "based on". How is your project different from purecss?
Yes and why should i use it and not purecss (which i currently use)
Chrome Version 37.0.2062.120 + Mac OS Mavericks Weird border: http://i.imgur.com/mLxx8gy.png Not centered: http://i.imgur.com/edMfAMC.png
What if you want a button that looks like a like and a link that looks like a button. In your case you will have to overwrite "button" selector, which is with very high specificiy and to override the main selector styles.
button.link { color: white; border: 0; background: none... }
This works good for small code base, but once you go to several pages and need specific links it starts to make a lot of problems.
I stopped using this way of styling buttons not so long ago and I switched it to :
Link
Same applies for input[type='...'] rules. I just add class name.
How would this be fixed if you want it completely semantic?
I tried this kind of selectors for styling and I don't like it. I can explain why with a question : What if you want a button that looks like a like and a link that looks like a button. In your case you will have to overwrite "button" selector, which is with very high specificiy and to override the main selector styles. button.link { color: white; border: 0; background: none... } and then copy the relevant for only a…
May I ask, in what situation did you encounter this? I still think this is way too specific (I have never had to do something like that). Picnic lets buttons be buttons, and links be links OR buttons, just buttons cannot be links.
I think in this way you can achieve less bloated classes and better readability. I value that higher than allowing buttons to be links. That's just my preference. Thank you for the insight though, it's a clear and good explanation of Picnic limits.
> Except for the grids and a bit of the nav How would this be fixed if you want it completely semantic?
About the nav, you could make it completely semantic by using some JS or not making it responsive, however I thought the benefits of having a responsive would compensate for those 2 extra lines of code.
i'm not a web dev (i'm a backend guy), i need to make some front end PoCs sometime, so i don't stay up on CSS packages and kits.