
Some quick thoughts on why CSS classes should be named something else and a tag should only have one "class"
title: CSS classes are terribly named published: true description: Some quick thoughts on why CSS classes should be named something else and a tag should only have one "class" tags: css
This isn't a long article, just a quick thought I just had.
It's no secret that one can use <custom-element>s in HTML without defining them in JS and use them only for styling.
One of the cool things about this is, ironically a restriction: Any element can only have one tag name, not several. A tag name isn't just a long list of different things that apply to an element, it's a singular statement on what it is.
That leads to an obvious question though: Isn't this what classes should be? And if that's how classes should really work, what should HTML/CSS classes be called instead?
I don't have strong thoughts on what it should be called; could be traits="...", could be mixin="...", could be anything else.
Point is, class="..." is a terrible name and should be thought of as one of those big mistakes in early web technology design, next to calling it "border-radius" rather than "corner-radius".
And despite the naming confusion, it is nice that we now have the tools to distinguish what an element is from what it does.
gemmaI ported the whole Gemma-4 family — E2B, E4B, 12B, 31B, and the 26B-A4B MoE — to run on...
communityHey DEV, I'm Tobore. Let's actually connect. I've been on here for a while now, mostly writing and...
ai(yep, kinda clickbait, just for the funsies 😊) At the beginning of the year, I relaunched my...
aiMy laptop was sitting idle with the fan at full tilt. Nothing was running that I knew of. The culprit...
githubactionsI Built a Thing! TL;DR — Google Gemini-based Pull Request reviews and Issue Triaging for...
aiI've been hearing the word "harness" thrown around a lot lately. I assumed it just meant "the IDE" or...