<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xml:lang="en-us" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><title>Simon Willison's Weblog: mark-boulton</title><link href="http://simonwillison.net/" rel="alternate"/><link href="http://simonwillison.net/tags/mark-boulton.atom" rel="self"/><id>http://simonwillison.net/</id><updated>2007-08-13T12:01:10+00:00</updated><author><name>Simon Willison</name></author><entry><title>Blueprint. A CSS Framework.</title><link href="https://simonwillison.net/2007/Aug/13/blueprint/#atom-tag" rel="alternate"/><published>2007-08-13T12:01:10+00:00</published><updated>2007-08-13T12:01:10+00:00</updated><id>https://simonwillison.net/2007/Aug/13/blueprint/#atom-tag</id><summary type="html">
    
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.markboulton.co.uk/journal/comments/blueprint_a_css_framework/"&gt;Blueprint. A CSS Framework.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
I’ve been trying to articulate why I’ve started to think that structural class names are a necessary evil in the comments.


    &lt;p&gt;Tags: &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/blueprint"&gt;blueprint&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/css"&gt;css&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/mark-boulton"&gt;mark-boulton&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/structuralclasses"&gt;structuralclasses&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;



</summary><category term="blueprint"/><category term="css"/><category term="mark-boulton"/><category term="structuralclasses"/></entry></feed>