Menu icon Foundation
Vote: Change .row.collapse to .row.collapsed

It's always baffled me as to why the `.collapse` class is named how it is. Many class names relate to the past completed tense of their action, such as `.expanded` and `.centered`, but not the case for `.collapse`, why?

Unless there is some great reason as to why not, I vote to rename the class from `.collapse` to `.collapsed` in order to stay consistent with other classes. It would be an easy change and I believe it would go far in the direction of consistency.

Because I'm always asking myself if the class is `.expand` or `.expanded` and `.collapse` or `.collapsed`. 

Anyone else share this view?

voterowcollapse

It's always baffled me as to why the `.collapse` class is named how it is. Many class names relate to the past completed tense of their action, such as `.expanded` and `.centered`, but not the case for `.collapse`, why?

Unless there is some great reason as to why not, I vote to rename the class from `.collapse` to `.collapsed` in order to stay consistent with other classes. It would be an easy change and I believe it would go far in the direction of consistency.

Because I'm always asking myself if the class is `.expand` or `.expanded` and `.collapse` or `.collapsed`. 

Anyone else share this view?

Rafi Benkual about 3 years ago

I think there is a reason for it. Collapse is an action you are taking on .row to affect the columns within vs .expanded is the current behavior of the .row. It's interesting to note that both .expand and .expanded were in the codebase in Foundation 5 until the in Foundation 6 we decided to make things more state based. 

There is no reason .collapsed can't be added as a class, though it can't be changed without causing breaking changes. If you were to submit a Pull Request to add it as a secondary class - we'd merge it in!