Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rename "trumps" layer to "utilities" #24

Closed
csshugs opened this issue Sep 30, 2015 · 6 comments
Closed

Rename "trumps" layer to "utilities" #24

csshugs opened this issue Sep 30, 2015 · 6 comments

Comments

@csshugs
Copy link
Member

csshugs commented Sep 30, 2015

@aaronstezycki came up with this question here.
I think it's better to create a proper issue here for discussion.

The idea is to remane the "trumps" layer to "utilities".

What I like about "trumps" is that the naming hints at its function, i.e. to trump everything else because you definitely want to take it effect, whatever the class is doing. Since every declaration in this layer has to contain an !important, the correlation in naming is more obvious (to me) than it would be with "utilities".

On the other hand, naming this layer "utilities" would align it with other frameworks like SUIT CSS and Foundation (naming wise) and probably would clear any confusion to inuit newbies, don't familiar with the trumps layer.
An even more obvious pro for "utilities" is the soon coming u-namespace. The t- namespace is reserved for "theme" so it seems like we have to go with the u- namespace for the trumps layer. Confusing right? I think this is an important point to consider. When introducing these namespaces to the framework, renaming the layer to "utilities" would definitely prevent any confusion.

Any thoughts @nenadjelovac @florianbouvot ?

@nenadjelovac
Copy link
Member

What I like about "trumps" is that the naming hints at its function, i.e. to trump everything else because you definitely want to take it effect, whatever the class is doing.

I really like this and I am personally comfortable with the name. But there is a lot of confusion for other people, and the second pro for "utilities" you (@csshugs) raised is something that makes me think we should probably rename it.

cc @csswizardry

@dennisfrank
Copy link

Yep. That makes a lot of sense. And I ran into some trouble myself explaining the u-namespace for the trumps level.

@florianbouvot
Copy link
Member

I fully agree with @nenadjelovac

Beyond that, I think the main problem is the maintenance of the framework. There's much point to validate and implement (namespaces, placeholder/silent classes, documentation, ...).
I do not blame @csswizardry (quite the opposite), but IMO I think he should oversee developments and accept your help...

Update : it isn't as important, but I think @csswizardry, has also changed base layer name to elements.

@nenadjelovac
Copy link
Member

@florianbouvot

Update : it isn't as important, but I think @csswizardry, has also changed base layer name to elements.

Yup, I stumbled upon some examples from him somewhere.

@jacquesletesson
Copy link

Will make more sense to use the u- namespace indeed.

@csshugs
Copy link
Member Author

csshugs commented Aug 5, 2016

Closing this, since we won't introduce such a huge change in the pre-alpha version.

Also, this is already implemented in the beta version.

@csshugs csshugs closed this as completed Aug 5, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants