I'm a big fan of Min: http://minfwk.com/

995 bytes!

Thanks! I'm the creator of Min. Are there any suggestions or improvements you have?

My first impression of min is that it looks nice. Really, for it's goals, it's pretty tight.

As a branding thing, I'd change that URL. I get that it's short but minfwk.com doesn't really look like "Min Framework" to me. It just looks like a bunch of letters. A domain like mincss.com, getmin.com, minframework.com or something more legible would be better.

> My first impression of min is that it looks nice. Really, for it's goals, it's pretty tight.

Thanks! You have no idea how good that feels.

> As a branding thing, I'd change that URL. I have had minframework.com for a while and still do, but it seems too long (Right now it redirects to minfwk.com) but I just got mincss.com and I prefer it quite a bit. I'll update Github accordingly. Thanks for the suggestion!

That's what I based Picnic on! Read on the "Some love" in the last section, it's also a great library

That section says "inspiration from". Seems different from "based on".

How is your project different from purecss?

Picnic CSS sets the style of the default elements, while in Pure CSS you have to add them manually as classes. This means that Picnic just works out of the box while Pure is more flexible.

There are some other smaller differences:

- The <select> just looks nice with Picnic in Firefox.

- Picnic relies in class combinations, while Pure relies in long specific class names. Compare <button class = "primary">Test</button> vs <button class = "btn btn-primary">Test</button>

- Pure CSS is surely more solid; it's been created by Yahoo and tested by thousands of webs

Yes and why should i use it and not purecss (which i currently use)

Besides of the comment above, please use the one you prefer and fits better your needs. Clean html and out of the box options are Picnic strengths, flexibility and browser support are PureCSS strengths.

Thanks for the short explanation.