o/ I'm fairly unfamiliar with ClojureScript (so maybe there's an obvious answer) but is there a reason to use keyword literals for class lists rather than strings?

Like to my knowledge you can't write classes like 2xl:flex with that since keywords can't start with a number (if I'm reading the docs right anyway…)

@thecrypticace No worries!

There are a lot of different reasons why keywords are preferred in Clojure, but the most basic one comes down to types: precisely because it's not a string, but captures something symbolic. It disambiguates, in your editor, and at runtime, from things you actually do want to capture in strings: names, text, etc. So, a combination of being both general enough, and specific enough, makes it useful.

Other than that, keywords are interned: the keyword :hello and the keyword :hello are identical in memory, which has all kinds of implications.

A common DSL for writing HTML and CSS within the Clojure community is called Hiccup, and looks like this:

[:p
 [:span.bg-white "Hello"]
 [:span#unique.text-red-500 "World"]]

The semantics are :<tag>#<id>.<class-1>.<class-2>….<class-n>.

As for numbers, the intention was that eg. :2 wasn't supported, but a bug in an early Clojure version made it possible to use it. And Clojure goes to extreme lengths to never backwards compatibility, so it's in fact supported.

Ah okay that's helpful — thanks! I left a comment. I think you mean't variant and not pseudo-class (e.g. sm:dark:… are variants in Tailwind CSS terminology. Sometimes they map to pseudo class but not always. (media queries, container queries, other selectors, etc…)

Thanks! This will be in the next release. You can use our insiders build before then to test it:

npm install tailwindcss@insiders @tailwindcss/cli@insiders

It may take about 15–30m before it's built and available on NPM.

Many thanks @thecrypticace!