refactor(colors): replace legacy colors by tokens

[AxelPeter]

All legacy colors has been replaced by the corresponding ODS tokens.
Except for @oui-color-primary, @oui-color-secondary, @oui-color-tertiary and @oui-color-brand.

[antleblanc]

Looks good to me!

Please let me know if you want me to open an issue for instance because
I'm having trouble to understand why docs/assets/css/oui-bs3.css.map file are
listed here.

It shouldn't be there except if there is a case to cover that I'm not aware of.
Thank you!

[antleblanc]

Is this part couldn't be removed? (commented code)

[AxelPeter]

Good catch, I'll remove those parts

[AxelPeter]

To view the changes in the demo page, we need to rebuild the assets files.
With this project, we don't bother with any grunt or webpack config (since it was supposed to be temporary :) )

[antleblanc]

To view the changes in the demo page, we need to rebuild the assets files.
With this project, we don't bother with any grunt or webpack config (since it was supposed to be temporary :) )

Thank you for the information.

Maybe we can consider to stop versioning the *.map files into the docs folder.
Here is an attempt to address it: #95

Please let me know what do you think.

Thanks

[AxelPeter]

I don't agree, because the .map file works with the versioned CSS file. If we rebuild the LESS files, the references of the map file changes according to its source files. So it needs to be versioned with the CSS file.

It has its place in the docs folder because the demo page is used as a dev environment.

[antleblanc]

I don't agree, because the .map file works with the versioned CSS file. If we rebuild the LESS files, the references of the map file changes according to its source files. So it needs to be versioned with the CSS file.

It has its place in the docs folder because the demo page is used as a dev environment.

I'm OK with the purpose of the *.map files here and generally but it could be questioned for this project, especially for the docs folder.

We can keep it as is for the scope of this Pull Request in order to be able to merge it and then continue the disccussion here #95

Thanks