Consider changing the way using hack

[egoist]

Currently you need to add .hack class name to a parent element so that the style of child elements could be affected, but sometimes not all the child elements want to be hacked, so maybe this way is better:

<h1 class="hack-h1">heading 1</h1>

And only theme class name needs to be added to parent element:

<div class="hack-solarized">
  <h1 class="hack-h1">heading 1</h1>
</div>

[dasilvacontin]

This change would make hack very cumbersome to use.

What's the use case? It can probably be solved via:

• having a similar class to .hack but that applies your other style onwards
• using an iframe
• setting .hack on sibling elements but not on a parent element.

[ghost]

The tricky part is adding the prefixes to the selectors equals more bytes down the wire, and I personally have been enjoying the minimalism of theme and ease of use as it stands.

It may be worth considering (haven't looked over yet, sorry) CSS namespaces if it meets the general need and helps facilitate component-based development (a la React and Vue) and allow finer control without increasing the amount of markup significantly.

I've been very pleased with Hack in current form, especially paired with the Bytesize icons @egoist suggested trying. And it's nice to see this discussion happening.

[toh82]

I got the Idea behind and there are some reasons, why it would be smart, but I don't think it's practical, to use a hack- prefix at every class. I would not care about the extra bytes because, like BEM syntax, gzip can handle that without a big impact (if I remember correctly).

[ghost]

Cross-linking for continuity #61