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

[Feature request]: Refactor typography.css to Focus on Essential Component Styles and Improve File Structure #2601

Closed
3 tasks done
swernerx opened this issue Apr 18, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #2615
Closed
3 tasks done
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@swernerx
Copy link

Preflight Checklist

Request type

Request for enhancement of a component

It affects the following packages

Components

Functionality

Hi!

I've been using the lyne-components library and noticed that the typography.css file, which is required before using the components, does not solely focus on typography. This file contains not only the styles necessary for the components but also global styles for setting text sizes, creating grids, and formatting lists. It also includes parts of normalize.css.

I believe that the current typography.css should be refocused solely on the styles necessary for the components. A more appropriate name for this refocused file could be core.css. This change would make the purpose of the file clearer and its scope more defined.

Additionally, it would be beneficial to separate the other concerns into their own CSS files, such as:

  • normalize.css for CSS resets
  • layout.css for grid systems and layout related styles
  • etc.

These files can then be included by users as needed, providing more flexibility and clarity in what each file is responsible for.

Thank you for considering this suggestion. I believe these changes would enhance the modularity and usability of the lyne-components library.

Link to design proposal file

No response

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants