← Back to context Comment by rafark 11 days ago Under that definition any css class is a shorthand for inline styles 1 comment rafark Reply digitalPhonix 10 days ago There's a big difference between utility classes which are shorthand for inline styles (random example from Tailwind's site where every single class is a one-to-one mapping with a single style override.): class="ml-3 hidden rounded-lg bg-gray-100 px-2 py-0.5 text-xs/6 font-semibold whitespace-nowrap text-gray-700 lg:block dark:bg-gray-400/15 dark:text-gray-300" and semantic names which use the CSS cascade: class="main-content subheading" Calling that a shorthand for inline styles is just being obtuse.
digitalPhonix 10 days ago There's a big difference between utility classes which are shorthand for inline styles (random example from Tailwind's site where every single class is a one-to-one mapping with a single style override.): class="ml-3 hidden rounded-lg bg-gray-100 px-2 py-0.5 text-xs/6 font-semibold whitespace-nowrap text-gray-700 lg:block dark:bg-gray-400/15 dark:text-gray-300" and semantic names which use the CSS cascade: class="main-content subheading" Calling that a shorthand for inline styles is just being obtuse.
There's a big difference between utility classes which are shorthand for inline styles (random example from Tailwind's site where every single class is a one-to-one mapping with a single style override.):
and semantic names which use the CSS cascade:
Calling that a shorthand for inline styles is just being obtuse.