Didn't get what it did until I saw "est" comment here on HN. There are no examples on the firstpage. I didn't have a nice .html near by so I couldn't test it.
Now that I know what it does, I don't see the point of it. Why would put every div, every html element in the CSS? I never do that.
Also the comments and the way of separating different CSS are not the way one would do at all on a project. I'm sorry but I really don't see the point of it at all, and I also don't see how you could monetize that.
PS: Also is it that revolutionary that it hits 5# on HN's frontpage?
Not everything needs to be monitised. The guys are MA students in Northern Ireland - they are promoting themselves and their skills. They will earn money from this.
I don't know what I expected really, but something more than an empty CSS file, maybe my expectations were totally off or maybe this wasn't very impressing. Although I could see that it would be convenient to generate this for large html pages with many elements.
After a first glimpse: multiple classes per node (or things like class=" ") are handled incorrectly and DOM hierarchy is ignored altogether (ul li ul anyone?). I wouldn't recommend this tool to anyone, sorry.
I've got nothing against the ever expanding array of web frameworks and such. However, I find it harder and harder to get a good overview and make a decision, and as such I tend to just default to using whatever framework I already know. I sometimes feel that I'm missing out on great things.
Someone should create a repository which lists all web development frameworks/utilities/tools/libraries/doodads/etc and has some kind of popularity mechanism. Right now, my only way of knowing what's used (and works) in the trenches is going by comments on HN.
This is a neat idea for creating themes or CSS skins.
Imagine if it only included HTML elements with an ID or a class. It's produce something that could then be edited to ADD to the current CSS, instead of replace it.
If we wanted to export all the styles in play for a HTML page, i.e. all the computed styles, I'm sure there's a way of hacking Firebug to export what it thinks is the CSS.
Incidentally, I didn't get it to work with a HTML page saved from the internet - it uploads it then tells me it's a HTTP error.
This is a fantastic project, but I can't help but feel that it's a bit late to the party. Five years ago this would have been especially helpful. The trend now is towards css compilers like LESS or SASS, or using bootstrap css frameworks where you name your html elements based on the framework conventions.
I still think there's a place for this. I think they've got a ways to go before it's ready though.
1. The output CSS contains invalid or unnecessary code. Multiple classes on an elements are incorrectly handled, some form inputs (checkout and radio) are incorrectly referenced, and reference-only IDs are included.
2. The idea is flawed. Writing CSS and creating reusable components is not the same as filling in values for every element, class, and id found in your HTML.
Some hierarchy for like div > h1 or ul > li etc would be nice. I just used the source of the page in and copied it to an html file but it basically just generated blocks under the correct labeling (ex: Typography has h1, h2, h3). It was more or less empty?
The reason being I had to copy text from a Word doc into a long-form landing page. HTML from Word sucks and I never found a converter I liked because of my compelling need for decent formatting.
So I would copy entire chunks of copy from Word into Dreamweaver and then create my markup based on paragraph, headings and so on. I even made an extension for Dreamweaver that would convert special characters into their HTML entity equivalents.
Once I had the copy in HTML I would then start designing with CSS and any images required.
I did it this way because once I got past the drudgery of creating the markup for the copy the design part was interesting, challenging and fun. Plus it felt faster that way as opposed to inserting and designing in chunks.
But for websites my preference is the same, HTML and CSS in tandem.
Looking at how web is shaping up in the post-PC era, it seems that the number of bits & bytes going into css (or any asset) is very important. In such a scenario, I find it more compelling to write those assets with own hands rather than pick up and bulldoze with css resets or frameworks or even normalization.
In that sense Bear CSS seems quite a good approach because then probably we're playing just with 'relevant css' of only elements/markup we're actually using in the app. Will definitely give it a try.
Now that I know what it does, I don't see the point of it. Why would put every div, every html element in the CSS? I never do that.
Also the comments and the way of separating different CSS are not the way one would do at all on a project. I'm sorry but I really don't see the point of it at all, and I also don't see how you could monetize that.
PS: Also is it that revolutionary that it hits 5# on HN's frontpage?