Entity List

Eric 8/14/12

The unstyled class, while presentational, is incredibly useful in many contexts. By providing a definition to this extent, we allow a user to @extend it as well so that their own definitions will include all of the necessary properties to achieve an unstyled list (not too many, but its the concept that's most important, as we'll probably use it in other places too).

And I agree that the scope should be relegated to the element it is defined upon, not on children. If there's a request for this, we could use a second class on the parent to apply the scope to its children ul|ol as well.

Logan 8/14/12

Due to its usefulness, we will be bringing over the "unstyled" CSS class for the list element, using Twitter Bootstrap's implementation.

Logan 8/10/12

The only major issue is the inclusion of the "unstyled" CSS class from Twitter Bootstrap (http://twitter.github.com/bootstrap/base-css.html#typography).

Removing styling from lists is extremely common, so the "unstyled" CSS class would be useful, but in most cases, you are removing the styling because you want to use the list in such a way that it maintains the semantic value, but doesn't retain any of the standard typographic conventions and structure. I would argue that you should be handling this purely in your CSS, not polluting your markup. (Personally, I would stick all lists that require a reset like this at the top in a clearly labeled "RESET" section or use a mixin)

So: should we remove the "unstyled" CSS class to avoid encouraging a potentially bad practice or leave it in due to its usefulness? (I'm leaning towards removing it)

If we do leave it in, should the scope be relegated to only the parent list (ala Twitter Bootstrap) or should child lists also lose styling? (My suggestion would be to follow the Bootstrap convention of limiting the scope as it is more modular)