Changing Foundation CSS for Tailwind

# Changing Foundation CSS for Tailwind As you know we're in the process of [RedesignDecidim](https://meta.decidim.org/processes/RedesignDecidim), and as such is a perfect time to rethink about the current dependencies that we have. 1. Even though initially adding lots of HTML classes seems like a bad idea, it actaully works pretty well in practice. You can see the reasoning behind this on the blogpost by Tailwind CSS founder at [CSS Utility Classes and "Separation of Concerns"](https://adamwathan.me/css-utility-classes-and-separation-of-concerns/) 1. It's a young project but consolidated, getting lots of traction in the past years and they have financial backing. As we've talked before, Foundation at the moment has stagnated. See more about Foundation below. 1. Related to the discussion of #8550, about the CO2 footprint, this could be a bit more efficient: using the JIT mode you can add only the CSS that you're actually using, according to some comparisons, compressing HTML is lighter than using CSS [TODO: CITATION NEEDED]. The main arguments against this migration is the one brought by @ahukkanen in a [comment another issue about dependencies replacement](https://github.com/decidim/decidim/issues/8516). I´ll add here enterily because it's really relevant to this discussion: > It goes a bit off topic, as the original idea was to replace the Ruby gems, but I'll also address the Foundation/jQuery issue here as they were mentioned, and until the new proposal comes out. > > ## TL;DR > > Sorry for the long post but I just had to get it out of my head while it's still fresh. > > TL;DR: > > 1. I support dropping jQuery (at some point in the future), I don't think it's necessary, although it is still required through Foundation > * When doing so, please keep jQuery in as a dependency at least for few official releases forward to maintain compatibility for external modules still using it. > 2. I don't support dropping Foundation at this point without an **extremely easy** migration path for external developers > * Instead, invest in UX standardization and guidelines > > ## Foundation is stagnating but not dead > > I personally think Foundation is stagnating and the project is not anymore developed by Zurb as they gave it to the community: > https://github.com/foundation/foundation-sites/issues/12191 > > Zurb is still using it in their products, though, so they have not abandoned it. > > The most active developer stopped working on it 2,5 years ago, although he is still occasionally popping by at the issues/PRs: > https://github.com/foundation/foundation-sites/issues/11767 > > But the project is not completely dead, as also pointed out in those threads. There was an issue in current Foundation version with the upcoming Dart Sass release and they (= the community maintainers) accepted our PR to fix it in a timely manner. And they even rolled out a release shortly after that. > > Regarding future developments, I don't have the feeling Foundation 7 will happen any time soon, unless there is someone who invests in in, i.e. pays someone at the Foundation maintenance team to do it (for example). Nothing happens automatically with good spirit and some water. > > I don't think anyone is getting paid to work on Foundation right now, which is why it is stagnating. > > ## What are the alternatives? > > As @andreslucena pointed out, this would be quite a big backwards breaking effort to change it at this point, although it has happened to other projects in the past. Those migration paths are generally very painful, even if the change was not that big of a deal for the core itself. People want backwards compatibility, as why MS products or WP are so popular, for example. I think people are already afraid of the webpack migration, which hasn't gone fully smoothly either. > > And even when changing the library, what is the real value that we get out of it, apart from dropping jQuery? Is there some security or accessibility issues in the current version of Foundation? Well, at least few with accessibility, but we were able to build [a layer on top of that](https://github.com/decidim/decidim/pull/8294) to fix some of those in Decidim itself. > > I've seen some other large projects using the big bird company's largely popular framework (which I personally prefer over Foundation, btw), and they also struggle to update between the different versions of the framework, which are also at least partly breaking backwards compatibility. If the only value is dropping jQuery, I would suggest investing in the Foundation 7 update, as that would be much smoother upgrade path. > > I'm also not saying the migration to another library is impossible with good guidance and documentation. I'm just saying people don't generally like that. > > ## What's the real problem that needs to be addressed? > > I think the bigger challenge with Decidim UI/UX today is that there needs to be a standardized approach to the whole UI and some level of understanding built for the developers on how and when to use the different UI components + some level of design direction when new features are built. Cards are super popular right now, as we can also see in Decidim, but does everything has to be a card? And does the card have to be cluttered with information or is there some better way to present it? If you have two large cards on a mobile screen, it takes the whole screen, where as a row based layout could show up many more items on the screen. Or as it was mentioned in the first redesign meeting of Decidim by the designer, that he did not really mean card to be used for the help page topics, the developer just decided to use them because there was no better guidance on the matter. > > I think this kind of standardization stuff would add much more value to the Decidim UI than switching the framework itself. If Foundation dies at some point (as all projects do at some point), fork it, call it "fundació" and fix the problems in it. Focus on bringing more value to the UI developers instead, to provide a more coherent experience for end users and developers. As the "foundation" framework name says it, it's "foundation", a starting point, something to build upon. It's not a complete UI guideline. > > I think @cyberschnaps put it pretty nicely at Decidim Fest as he said something like > > > _Foundation is just a "buch of stuff". Not a UI framework._ > > Please correct me for any misquotes @cyberschnaps. > > More on this matter, let's continue at: > https://meta.decidim.org/processes/RedesignDecidim/f/1663/debates/230 > https://github.com/decidim/decidim/discussions/8550 Regarding this, the main contraarguments that we've found are: * we'll be already breaking the backwards compatiblity as the redesign will be big [TODO: agrgar mas argumentos]