Fluid Project has adopted the following recommendation for using CSS Frameworks:
|Recommendation||Application: Infusion Components||Application: Integration|
|Use CSS framework||No||Yes|
|Use own / default styles||Yes||Yes*|
|Recommended framework||Zurb Foundation|
|Use CSS framework with contrast themes||No||Maybe*|
*see notes below
For Fluid Infusion Components:
For websites, demos, etc.
Recommended CSS framework:
Using a framework for styling purposes in an Infusion component is not recommended because of the lack of class name spacing. Without a good way to namespace Infusion's use of a framework, there is a likelihood that Infusion's choice framework may collide with integrator's existing styling causing undesired results. In order to ensure that Infusion components play nicely with the integrator's application regardless of their styling, Infusion components will use their own default styling following the recommended classname convention to reduce the occurrence of collisions.
CSS frameworks are fine to be used within the context of demos, websites, and other integration scenarios.
We will re-evaluate the use of CSS frameworks for Infusion components if a good method for name spacing becomes available.
In deciding which framework to recommend for the Fluid project, many criteria were considered including: documentation, community support, accessibility, and scalability.
After researching and comparing 6 different CSS frameworks, Zurb Foundation is the recommended framework for the following reasons:
Yes, you can use any framework you prefer for integration applications if it satisfies the concerns of the Fluid project. In particular, the CSS framework should be:
Better name spacing
Add CSS framework support to the Preferences Framework