-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Replace use of whitelist with allowlist and blacklist with denylist #1868
Comments
I'm on board with using better terminology here but lets wait and see if PurgeCSS will change it upstream before adding an additional layer here. It would suck for us to choose one set of terms and them to choose another and have the APIs diverge from one another. These terms don't actually appear in the Tailwind codebase at all, and the I'll leave this open until a decision is made upstream but lets focus the discussion there. |
This is being changed upstream: FullHuman/purgecss#439 Since we don't actually use this language in Tailwind itself I'm going to close this, but if we ever do introduce abstractions on top of this functionality we will absolutely use the most inclusive terminology. |
Controlled speech is a form of evil, just saying. |
We can use better terminology and promote diversity.
Whitelists would become
allowlists
Blacklists would become
denylists
Right now, Tailwind makes use of the term 'whitelist' mostly in the docs and passing PurgeCSS options forward.
The first case would be relatively easy to change. The second one depends on PurgeCSS, but, we already have a layer over it, and could already start a change by:
whitelist
,whitelistPatterns
andwhitelistPatternsChildren
inside Tailwind'spurge
options:allowlist
,allowlistPatterns
andallowlistPatternsChildren
;options
;It's changing a third party package API, but it has to start somewhere. Good documentation on our side would reduce the friction (we already have it in place for Tailwind's layer) and send a message: we are doing our part.
edit: I can PR
inspired by Rails: rails/rails#33677
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: