auth0-spa-js VS unocss

Your message feels disingenuous and not in good-faith.

Auth0 clearly advises against the localStorage option which is most similar to Stytch's:

> _Important:_ This feature will allow the caching of data _such as ID and access tokens_ to be stored in local storage. Exercising this option changes the security characteristics of your application and _should not be used lightly._ Extra care should be taken to mitigate against XSS attacks and minimize the risk of tokens being stolen from local storage.

This is from the readme of the github you linked:

https://github.com/auth0/auth0-spa-js/tree/0de9c6bf61d37fc21...

And since their other client-only solutions have major UX challenges (as you highlight), I expect most Auth0 users have landed on the secure option.

This is very different from Stytch - which as far as I can tell - doesn't disclose or acknowledge the risk, and instead willingly puts developers at increased risk. Throughout this thread, you've been dismissive of the risk despite security organizations clearly indicating that HttpOnly is best-practice.

You've found a legitimate comparison in Firebase, but for me, you've taken several steps too far trying to compare to Auth0.

Auth0 provides the auth0-spa-js package which offers two ways to authenticate users:

Therefore, I have transformed the library [@auth0/auth0-spa-js](https://github.com/auth0/auth0-spa-js), which is another official Auth0 client library, to have an authentication hook and methods that can be accessible outside the components.

auth0-spa-js must run on a secure origin. See https://github.com/auth0/auth0-spa-js/blob/master/FAQ.md#why-do-i-get-auth0-spa-js-must-run-on-a-secure-origin for more information. 32 | it("renders a login button", () => { 33 | > 34 | const { getByText } = render( | ^ 35 | 36 | 37 |

I wish tailwind would support attributify like https://github.com/unocss/unocss, which is much more readable for complex layouts:

  link

I feel the same about people praising Tailwind.

Tailwind (and similar, I tend to use https://unocss.dev/) is not good for your frontend architecture BUT they allow you to be so fast, that it negates the benefits.

For a job well done, I'd follow the principles of https://maintainablecss.com/

I think UnoCss is may be better than Tailwind already and has a good Vue integration https://unocss.dev/

The most popular tools that implement this approach are: Tailwind, WindiCSS, UnoCSS.

- UnoCSS: https://unocss.dev/

haha, fair point. Still, I'm on the fence about how utility components are namespaced in USWDS. Perhaps giving users the flexibility to define the namespace might work better? One thing that bugs me is the absence of class-sorting like we have in TailwindCSS. Plus, there are some gaps I've noticed in USWDS. The naming, especially when comparing "padding-x-2" and "p-x-2", can be really annoying when switching around, maybe that could also be an option for the developer or project. Similar to the ideas antfu has on uno.css https://unocss.dev/ ♥

UnoCSS is a popular option

UnoCSS — for styling with Tailwind-like atomic CSS;

Some exceptional libraries and frameworks only support VSCode, which you could argue is a bad thing, but it makes sense, VSCode is the most popular code editor after all. For example UnoCSS only has a VSCode extension, and it's my favourite way to write CSS. Astro has a LSP but I've found that the experience in VSCode is much better than in Neovim.