On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Chris Eppstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the blueprint team wanted to make a switch to Sass, I'm ready and willing > to aid them in that switch. However, given that Sass is a relatively new > syntax for writing stylesheets, I understand their reluctance to switch and > so I'm happily maintaining my port for the time being. I just want to add to this. Blueprint won't be making a "switch" to Sass, because Blueprint is not just a way to style webpages. It's a foundation on top of which tools like Compass, Construct, etc. can be built. People can use it in the raw form, and then it does require that a basic foundation of web design be violated. Or they can use Compass to do it the Sass way, or they can use Construct to do it the WYSIWYG way. But all these "ways" exist because Blueprint exists, and that was my goal in being involved with Blueprint to begin with. Am I saying that people shouldn't hand-write their sites to use raw Blueprint? Not at all! I do it all the time. In some cases, that's all you can do. My point is that Blueprint is fine as a raw, core foundation. Now to the original point, there's nothing wrong with recommending Compass as a further explanation, after an answer has already been shared, which is exactly what Chris did. There are lots of things raw Blueprint won't do, and centering a column without exact prepend-X classes is one of them. It just goes against the basics of the grid that Blueprint offers, and yes, the grid is not flexible. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.net --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Blueprint CSS" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/blueprintcss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
