Stuck on an issue?

Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.

And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.

Why are attribute names "class" and "for" discouraged?

See original GitHub issue

From the docs:

Note: Since JSX is JavaScript, identifiers such as class and for are discouraged as XML attribute names. Instead, React DOM components expect DOM property names like className and htmlFor, respectively.

But the JSX compiler seems to be smart enough to quote keys like "class" and "for" (so they’ll work fine even in pre-ES5 environments). So what’s the problem? Why are they discouraged, and what exactly does that mean?

Issue Analytics

State:
Created 8 years ago
Reactions:3
Comments:8 (6 by maintainers)

Top GitHub Comments

1reaction

nhunzakercommented, Jul 12, 2017

I’d like to see support for direct use of class and for. There is overlap with #5926, and conversation has picked up again there, so I’ll close this out.

0reactions

sarimartoncommented, Oct 12, 2022

In app code I would say it’s outright recommendable to use class, especially if you want your codebase to be a lot more ergonomic with tailwind. Suppressing the warning can be done with a console.log override, and typing can be added easily as well. In library code, I would support both.