Last modified: 2012-07-25 10:16:48 UTC
Gentlemen, We clearly do not have enough classes on our output. See bug 5722, bug 5874, bug 6104, bug 8140, bug 9174, bug 10052, bug 11005, bug 12509, bug 13242, bug 14247, bug 14549, bug 15729, bug 17666, bug 18704, bug 22770. Clearly we need more. Suggest this bug as a blocker to the next release.
WONTFIX this and all dependencies? :)
Fat chance.
(In reply to comment #1) > WONTFIX this and all dependencies? :) +1.
(In reply to comment #1) > WONTFIX this and all dependencies? :) Show some respect! If you developers want users to make suggestions, than don't put a ":)" after a comment demonstrating your dislike for users' input. Otherwise simply close the open bug tracking system.
(In reply to comment #4) > Show some respect! > If you developers want users to make suggestions, than don't put a ":)" after a > comment demonstrating your dislike for users' input. Otherwise simply close the > open bug tracking system. You can file bugs, which gives us a place to look at them. That doesn't mean we'll agree with all of them -- that's why the WONTFIX resolution exists. We already have too many classes in some places, and there's really no limit to how many classes we could add to the output. If we added classes every time a user asked for it, our output would become horrifyingly bloated over time. Best not to go there, and to add no new classes unless there's a very clear reason.
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Show some respect! > > If you developers want users to make suggestions, than don't put a ":)" after a > > comment demonstrating your dislike for users' input. Otherwise simply close the > > open bug tracking system. > > You can file bugs, which gives us a place to look at them. That doesn't mean > we'll agree with all of them -- that's why the WONTFIX resolution exists. > > We already have too many classes in some places, and there's really no limit to > how many classes we could add to the output. If we added classes every time a > user asked for it, our output would become horrifyingly bloated over time. > Best not to go there, and to add no new classes unless there's a very clear > reason. I simply meant the way it was rejected ... There is no need for a cynical ":)".
Renaming from 'CSS classes' to 'CSS hooks' as IDs are included as well.
