Normal p, small, ... in jumbotron

[IsaiahvH]

Hello,

Wouldn't it be an idea to add a .no-jumbo class to (text) elements in a jumbotron who shouldn't be 'jumbood' (made big, appear as if they have the .lead class)?

Now every <p>, <small> and other text elements are always 'jumbood' in a jumbotron.
This isn't bad, but in some cases you would just like to add a <small>on the bottom of the jumbotron, with a nice text-muted class.
Now you can't, because it's still way too big and it has a lead style, which shouldn't be applied to a <small>, right?

Normally you'd just place it outside the jumbotron, but in my example you'd want the same grey background color, the same padding; just a jumbotron style without the text itself being 'jumbood'.

Couldn't you use a :not(.no-jumbo)? It would be clean and, as I see it, a nice little option.

[ftbastler]

I think this is too specific. The jumbotron is there to really stand out and "shout" at the user.
Also, you could just edit some css and you would be done...

[zlatanvasovic]

@ftbastler Agree.

[IsaiahvH]

@ftbastler @zdroid Okay.

Of course you are right, but my idea was just to provide a way you didn't have to apply extra styles.
It's not like adding CSS is a big thing, and it's not catastrophical not having 'normal' text in a jumbotron, but so isn't adding :not(.no-jumbo) as well. It's merely 15 characters more.

[zlatanvasovic]

Right class for normal text is text-reset, or text-normal, not
no-jumbo.

2013/11/24 Isaiah van Hunen [email protected]

@ftbastler https://github.com/ftbastler @ZDroidhttps://github.com/ZDroidOkay.

Of course you are right, but my idea was just to provide a way you didn't
have to apply extra styles.
It's not like adding CSS is a big thing, and it's not catastrophical not
having 'normal' text in a jumbotron, but so isn't adding :not(.no-jumbo)as well. It's merely 15 characters more.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/11588#issuecomment-29159803
.

Zlatan Vasović - ZDroid

[juthilo]

(Note: due to IE8 compatibility concerns, it'd be best to avoid using the :not() selector, which isn't supported in that browser.)

[zlatanvasovic]

Yea Julian, that's reason for my text-reset.

2013/11/24 Julian Thilo [email protected]

(Note: due to IE8 compatibility concerns, it'd be best to avoid using the
:not() selector, which isn't supported in that browser.)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/11588#issuecomment-29162591
.

Zlatan Vasović - ZDroid

[IsaiahvH]

@zdroid But this doesn't exist yet, does it?

And @juthilo, you are of course right, but IE8 doesn't support many things.
It's not wrong to try to be compatible with IE8, but you shouldn't limit 'because IE8 isn't compatible'.

(That is, IE8 will just ignore the :not() selector, right?

[juthilo]

Yup, just to have this written out in the thread. :)

[juthilo]

@IsaiahvH I did write 'it'd be best' - we already have this selector in our code elsewhere but we try do avoid it (and other incompatible features) where possible.

[IsaiahvH]

Okay, I understand that :)
It'd just be nice if we could fully use CSS3 and HTML5 without having to worry about compatibility issues...
It's always frustrating when my site looks (really) nice on my Google Chrome, which supports most of the CSS3, and then you use a school computer and suddenly things are broken...