Thanks for your more detailed explanation!

The text as it appears in the article:

{

You don’t write, so you don’t read

Before you complain that short names like “x5” for CSS classes is a bad idea, let me tell you that you are not required to read the code. “x5” is just an under the hood alias for a long and meaningful name.

}

It is a trade-off situation:

1) long/readable names and longer HTML file

or

2) abbreviations (easy to guess) and shorter HTML file

I chose '2'. Because it has the important advantage on the file size. And because the code is still readable (to me), although, being readable is not required.

And your opinion means a lot to me (not only yours).

That's why I have stopped talking about abbreviations in my recent articles. The abbreviations were never the essence of my concepts.

EDIT: If I can recall, some names were not easily guessable indeed, not simple abbreviations.