Makes sense, but there’s two problems with that:

1. That makes the assumption that components of a specific name implement the 
HTML component of the same name.
2. Classes take precedence over element selectors, so that styling is too 
easily overridden.


> On May 15, 2018, at 6:11 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
> 
> Certain typenames match up against HTMLElement names and are thus valid Type 
> selectors so are not transformed into Class Selectors.
> 
> -Alex 
> 
> On 5/15/18, 2:09 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>    Interesting. It looks to me like a bug.
> 
>    The theme CSS compiles into this:
>    Button {
>            border: 1px solid #808080;
>            padding: 4px;
>            background-color: #f8f8f8;
>            margin: 0px;
>            border-radius: 2px;
>    }
>    Button:hover {
>            border: 1px solid #808080;
>            padding: 4px;
>            background-color: #e8e8e8;
>    }
>    Button:active {
>            border: 1px solid #808080;
>            padding: 4px;
>            background-color: #d8d8d8;
>    }
> 
>    Instead of this:
> 
>    .Button {
>            border: 1px solid #808080;
>            padding: 4px;
>            background-color: #f8f8f8;
>            margin: 0px;
>            border-radius: 2px;
>    }
>    .Button:hover {
>            border: 1px solid #808080;
>            padding: 4px;
>            background-color: #e8e8e8;
>    }
>    .Button:active {
>            border: 1px solid #808080;
>            padding: 4px;
>            background-color: #d8d8d8;
>    }
> 
>    Button is an element name (case insensitive) instead of a class name…
> 
>    Harbs
> 
>> On May 15, 2018, at 11:52 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I just tried an experiment of giving an MDL Button a classname of “Button” 
>> in addition to all the MDL classes. Interestingly, the mdl class names 
>> overrode the Button one. I’m really not sure why because the Button css 
>> should have been loaded later than MDL. I’d appreciate your thoughts if you 
>> have any on that.
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to