Add Component support about pure HOT 14 CLOSED

I think @ericf had some thoughts on this.

from pure.

The reason we didn't add component support is that Pure has no JavaScript and therefore doesn't fit with one of Component's main features: "write modular commonjs components"

Are there other CSS-only components?

from pure.

One of pure's main dependencies normalize.css is an example: https://github.com/necolas/normalize.css

from pure.

FWIW, normalize.css has no "official" plans to maintain Component(1) support.

from pure.

+1 for component support. I am a BowerJS user. Currently Bower clones the whole git. However I would prefer Bower to download the built package.

from pure.

Yeah, one of the priorities for Bower is to provide support for publishing built packages to the registry. A lot of repos already check in the built file – which is good for Bower right now – but it's not ideal to be doing that.

from pure.

The bower package is not very useful right now, since you need to run npm install && grunt (assuming you already have grunt-cli), or otherwise include huge paths like components/pure/src/buttons/css/buttons.css.

from pure.

@ricardobeat yes, that's the current state of things. This is why we don't advertise that Pure is a registered Bower package in the README.md. That said after talking with people who are involved with Bower, we like the direction they are heading and Pure will become much more useful as a Bower package since you won't have to run the build manually.

But still the goals for Bower and the goals for Component are different, and IMO Pure aligns best with Bower. The reason I don't want to add Component support is the same reason I don't think it makes sense to publish Pure to npm.

from pure.

I made a repo of the built css files of tag v0.1.0 and submitted it to the Bower registry under the name pure-built. I'll try to keep up with the project and update the repo in step with Pure releases.

from pure.

@jjt +1..

from pure.

@jjt thanks!

from pure.

I am closing this since we feel that Pure + Component is not the right fit and Component's goals are different that Pure's goals of being a small CSS (only) library.

from pure.

@ericf have you read the original blog post that lead to component? "A component can be not just JavaScript, but CSS, images, fonts or other resources, or a component may be any combination of these. This is the main idea that I want to sell, we need to broaden modularity beyond just JavaScript source." in my opinion, component is very different from npm, and is instead perfectly aligned with Pure's goals of being a small CSS (only) library.

from pure.

@ahdinosaur I understand Components as JavaScript (required, served via require() in the browser), plus optional HTML and CSS. Component is much closer to a system around what Web Components will someday become. Pure is a CSS library, these two things seem to be different; and that's why Bower is our horse.

from pure.