.hide and .show classes with !important breaks $(elem).show();

[Bartmax]

I think this is lazy implementation and it breaks when using $(elem).show() or $(elem).hide() using jQuery since the hide class get more importance since the badly (IMO) use of !important.

I think BT should not declare this so generics classes with !important, it makes difficult to customize. I don't like the idea of having another class for doing display: none because BT uses !important.

In my opinion, having a rule like : .hide { btn&, ul li&, etc.. { display:none; }} isn't much work and won't break anything. also footprint shouldn't increase a lot since the .hide pattern will be greatly gzipped.

right now, having a <div id="someId" class="hide"></div> will break $('#someId').show() function of jQuery.

[mdo]

We had a decently long discussion about this and opted for it for simplicity sake when quickly and easily toggling content. If you're using jQuery, just toggle the classes instead of using show/hide.

[mdo]

In my opinion, having a rule like : .hide { btn&, ul li&, etc.. { display:none; }} isn't much work and won't break anything. also footprint shouldn't increase a lot since the .hide pattern will be greatly gzipped.

It is a lot of work—you'll need to include all the things and then you'll have a super non-performant selector that the browsers need to handle. Not an ideal solution I'm afraid.

[Bartmax]

why not make an 'internal-only' class then ? this .hide is unusable, I don't think anyone will be using class hide on their markup or will use it and will probably will have a really bad headache. Since .hide is a way too generic, would you mind using another 'internal-name' class like bootstrap-hide class or something ?

There's no mentioning of it in the docs, not even as a helper class, so I don't think you are using it for end-user (like pull-right and pull-left).

[mdo]

Can't rename it now, not until v4.

And it is in the docs—see helper utilities.

On Monday, August 19, 2013, Bartmax wrote:

why not make an 'internal-only' class then ? this .hide is unusable, I
don't think anyone will be using class hide on their markup or will use it
and will probably will have a really bad headache. Since .hide is a way too
generic, would you mind using another 'internal-name' class like
bootstrap-hide class or something ?

There's no mentioning of it in the docs, not even as a helper class, so I
don't think you are using it for end-user (like pull-right and pull-left).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/9881#issuecomment-22912446
.

[Bartmax]

Ok would be great if you consider for v4.

BTW, I don't see it on helper classes nor responsive utilities. maybe it's not published in http://getbootstrap.com/ atm

[Bartmax]

.hide and ALSO .hidden classes are defined and both classes use !important.

I really mean it, this kind of thing makes it really hard to extend bootstrap. Please remove or document hidden class. I hope you remove it.

[phaidon]

I really mean it, this kind of thing makes it really hard to extend bootstrap.

I can agree.

[japgolly]

+1

[phaidon]

I did some test. If the important flag would be removed some stuff is not working anymore with the hide class. For example the navbar with display: inline. So I think the current solution has its reasons.

[Bartmax]

yes, that 'some stuff' should add a rule like navbar.hide {display:none}.
looks simple to me but I don't know the whole implications of it.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 1:55 PM, phaidon [email protected] wrote:

I did some test. If the important flag would be removed some stuff is not
working anymore with the hide class. For example the navbar with display:
inline. So I think the current solution has its reasons.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/9881#issuecomment-24934853
.

[glen-84]

👍

[dirkluijk]

+1 for removing !important

[thornebrandt]

+1 for removing !important

[mdo]

It's on the v4 list to revisit.

[cvrebert]

X-Ref: foundation/foundation-sites#6024