I think it’s plausible, though probably not quite intentional at any point.
The first step is a rule that all class must be valid Tailwind names. Honestly this would be useful, because people make mistakes, Tailwind’s names are often obtuse, and without this it’s hard to realise when you’ve got mistakes, because there’s so much noise. If you think a CSS checker should complain about unknown CSS property names or values, it stands to reason in this brave Tailwind world that the class attribute should receive the same treatment.
Then the second step is making that rule autofixable, by removing invalid values. This is the sort of thing that shouldn’t happen, but easily could.
I think it’s plausible, though probably not quite intentional at any point.
The first step is a rule that all class must be valid Tailwind names. Honestly this would be useful, because people make mistakes, Tailwind’s names are often obtuse, and without this it’s hard to realise when you’ve got mistakes, because there’s so much noise. If you think a CSS checker should complain about unknown CSS property names or values, it stands to reason in this brave Tailwind world that the class attribute should receive the same treatment.
Then the second step is making that rule autofixable, by removing invalid values. This is the sort of thing that shouldn’t happen, but easily could.