Projects evolve at different rates. MintyFlaskSSG has settled into relative stability—content processing works, photo integration functions, static site generation produces reliable output. MintyFlaskThemes, separated from that stable foundation, remains very much in progress.
This disparity doesn't surprise me. SSG concerns—reading Markdown, processing YAML, generating HTML—present well-defined problems with established solutions. Theme architecture—semantic components, three-layer composition, mixin integration—requires more exploration. The patterns need testing against real projects. The abstractions need refinement through use.
So MintyFlaskThemes needs more work. This article examines what that work entails, what questions remain open, and why deliberate restraint matters as much as feature development.
The balance of sensible defaults
Core themes provide defaults—base layouts, essential components, foundational styling. These defaults shape what themes and mixins build upon. Too few defaults and every theme reimplements basic patterns. Too many defaults and themes drown in inherited complexity they don't need.
Finding this balance requires careful consideration. A button component needs sensible defaults for padding, border radius, font size, colour. But how many size variants? How many colour intents? How many style modifiers? Each addition provides flexibility whilst increasing the surface area developers must understand.
I've been working through this systematically with _core theme values. The button system currently provides:
.btn-base /* Foundation styles */
.btn-size-xs /* Size variants: xs, sm, md, lg, xl */
.btn-intent-primary /* Intent variants: primary, secondary, success, warning, danger */
.btn-style-solid /* Style variants: solid, outline, ghost */
.btn-icon-left /* Modifiers: icon positioning, full width, disabled states */
This feels about right. Enough variants to handle common cases without requiring custom classes. Few enough that the system remains comprehensible. But "about right" requires validation through actual use across multiple projects.
The same consideration applies to layout primitives, card components, form elements, navigation patterns. Each system needs defaults sufficient for common cases without becoming a catalogue of every possible variation. This takes time—build something, use it, refine it, use it again.
The temptation exists to anticipate every use case upfront. "We might need a button with a loading spinner" leads to implementing loading states before any project actually needs them. This creates complexity serving hypothetical futures rather than present requirements.
Better to implement patterns as they prove necessary, ensuring defaults emerge from real usage rather than speculative feature lists.
Feature creep and restraint
The attached document lis potential mixin features: blogs, portfolios, e-commerce, booking systems, documentation, CRM integration. Each feature seems reasonable. Each addresses real SMB website needs. Each could prove useful.
And therein lies the danger.
Feature accumulation happens gradually. One mixin leads to another. "We have a blog mixin, why not add a newsletter mixin? And if we have newsletters, we should integrate with email marketing services. And if we're doing email integration, we need preference centres and subscription management..."
Before long, the system grows complex enough that understanding it requires significant investment. The "starter kit and foundation" becomes a framework demanding study. The simplicity that made it approachable disappears beneath accumulated features.
I want to resist this trajectory. Not because features are bad—they're often quite useful—but because restraint matters more than completeness. A system with twenty well-considered features serves developers better than a system with fifty features of varying quality and integration.
This means saying "not now" or "not here" to useful features. Maybe booking systems belong in a separate project rather than a MintyFlaskThemes mixin. Maybe CRM integration proves too complex for the value it provides. Maybe some features work better as documentation showing how to implement them rather than pre-built components.
The challenge lies in distinguishing essential patterns from nice-to-have additions. Blog functionality: essential for content sites. Photo galleries: essential for visual businesses. E-commerce: possibly essential, possibly better served by dedicated platforms. Chat integration: probably better as external service documentation than built-in mixin.
These judgements aren't absolute. Different projects have different requirements. But MintyFlaskThemes can't serve all requirements without becoming unwieldy. Better to serve core requirements well whilst remaining extensible for specific needs.
Is this project for you?
This question matters. Not every project benefits from MintyFlaskThemes' approach. Let me be direct about when this system makes sense and when it doesn't.
This system likely fits if you:
- Build Flask applications and understand Jinja2 templating
- Prefer semantic HTML over utility-first approaches
- Value template composition over component frameworks
- Want ready-to-use patterns without heavy abstractions
- Build sites where JavaScript enhances rather than drives functionality
- Appreciate systems that reveal their workings
This system likely doesn't fit if you:
- Need runtime theme switching or multi-tenant theme management
- Prefer React/Vue/Svelte component architectures
- Want comprehensive admin interfaces and content management
- Require extensive JavaScript interactivity throughout
- Need bleeding-edge features over stable patterns
- Prefer opinionated frameworks to flexible foundations
I built MintyFlaskThemes to serve projects I work on—Flask-based sites emphasising semantic markup, progressive enhancement, and build-time processing. It reflects my preferences about web development: HTML as meaningful structure, CSS as semantic abstraction, JavaScript as enhancement not requirement.
These preferences aren't universal truths. They're approaches that work well for certain types of projects and less well for others. If your projects align with these approaches, MintyFlaskThemes might prove useful. If not, other tools probably serve you better.
The honest assessment matters because choosing the wrong foundation costs time. Better to evaluate fit upfront than discover incompatibility after investment.
What remains certain
Some aspects of MintyFlaskThemes feel settled:
The three-layer architecture works. Theme → Mixin → Core provides clean separation whilst enabling composition. This pattern has proven itself across enough use cases that I'm confident in its fundamentals.
Pure Jinja2 was the right choice. Direct template resolution without abstraction libraries provides the control and transparency the system needs. This decision continues proving correct.
Semantic components provide value. Meaningful class names like .card-intent-primary and .layout-stack-loose make templates readable and maintainable. The 70/30 semantic-utility balance feels appropriate.
Mixin architecture enables growth. Self-contained feature units that compose cleanly solve the extensibility problem. As new mixins emerge, this architecture accommodates them without structural changes.
These certainties provide foundation. The system's core patterns work. What remains uncertain concerns specific implementations, feature scope, and refinement details.
What remains uncertain
Several questions need more exploration:
Mixin template namespacing: Currently, multiple mixins containing templates with the same name can conflict. The blog mixin and portfolio mixin might both provide components/card.html. Jinja2's PrefixLoader can namespace these (blog/components/card.html, portfolio/components/card.html), but the integration needs careful design.
Optimal mixin scope: How much functionality should a single mixin provide? The blog mixin currently handles posts, categories, tags, archives, pagination, related posts. Should some features split into separate mixins? Where's the boundary between one cohesive mixin and multiple composable ones?
Theme variant requirements: The minimal theme provides foundation. The business theme will address professional service sites. But how many themes does the system need? Should themes be minimal exemplars or comprehensive solutions? This tension between "show patterns" and "provide completeness" remains unresolved.
Component granularity: How fine-grained should components be? Separate classes for .card-header, .card-body, .card-footer provide flexibility. But maybe .card-section with modifiers proves sufficient? These decisions affect both simplicity and capability.
Documentation depth: How much should documentation explain versus assume? Flask developers understand Jinja2, but semantic component patterns might need more guidance. Finding the right balance takes iteration.
These uncertainties don't indicate fundamental problems. They're questions that experience answers better than speculation. Build more, use more, refine more.
The roadmap forward
Several directions seem clear:
Expand mixin library: The attached document outlines potential mixins addressing SMB needs—services, team pages, testimonials, contact forms, FAQs. These represent common patterns worth providing as reusable units. Not all at once, but gradually as they prove necessary.
Complete theme variants: The minimal theme exists but needs refinement. The business theme needs creation. These themes demonstrate patterns whilst serving actual project needs.
Improve documentation: Current documentation assumes too much Flask knowledge. More examples, clearer explanations, better architecture guides would help developers evaluate and adopt the system.
Refine core defaults: The _core theme continues needing attention. Component variants, colour systems, layout primitives—each needs careful consideration and testing.
But one direction particularly interests me: creating a "pure Tailwind" theme.
The pure Tailwind experiment
MintyFlaskThemes uses semantic components extensively. Classes like .card-base and .btn-intent-primary abstract Tailwind utilities into meaningful patterns. This provides maintainability benefits whilst potentially creating adoption friction—developers must learn the semantic system.
What if we created a theme using only vanilla Tailwind utilities? No semantic abstractions, no custom components, just standard Tailwind classes. This would:
- Demonstrate that the three-layer architecture doesn't require semantic components
- Provide an entry point for developers already comfortable with Tailwind
- Show how utility-first approaches map to the template hierarchy
- Validate that the system doesn't force specific styling methodologies
The minimal theme could serve as template. Recreate its layouts and patterns using pure Tailwind utilities instead of semantic components. A button becomes:
<!-- Semantic approach -->
<button class="btn-base btn-intent-primary btn-size-md">Click me</button>
<!-- Pure Tailwind approach -->
<button
class="px-4 py-2 bg-blue-600 text-white rounded-lg hover:bg-blue-700 transition-colors"
>
Click me
</button>
Both work. Both achieve the goal. The semantic approach provides consistency and maintainability. The utility approach provides directness and flexibility. Neither is categorically superior—they serve different preferences.
Providing both options lets developers choose based on their comfort and needs. Those preferring semantic patterns use the default system. Those preferring Tailwind utilities use the pure Tailwind theme. The architecture accommodates both without forcing either.
This experiment would validate architectural flexibility whilst providing practical value. If MintyFlaskThemes only works with semantic components, that's a limitation. If it accommodates multiple styling approaches, that's strength.
Living with incompleteness
MintyFlaskThemes remains unfinished. This doesn't trouble me. Software always remains unfinished—new requirements emerge, patterns need refinement, better approaches reveal themselves through use.
What matters is whether the foundation proves sound and whether the direction remains clear. The foundation—three-layer architecture, pure Jinja2 resolution, mixin composition—feels solid. The direction—semantic components by default, semantic-utility flexibility, deliberate feature restraint—seems right.
The system serves projects I build whilst remaining flexible enough for projects others build. It follows Flask patterns whilst enabling extension. It provides useful defaults whilst allowing override. These characteristics matter more than feature completeness.
MintyFlaskSSG generates static sites reliably. MintyFlaskThemes provides presentation architecture flexibly. They work together whilst remaining independent. Each focuses on distinct concerns. Both continue evolving based on actual use rather than speculative requirements.
Sometimes the honest answer to "where is this going?" is "I'm not entirely sure yet, but the foundations feel right and the immediate next steps seem clear." That's where MintyFlaskThemes stands. Good enough to use, promising enough to develop further, uncertain enough to remain interesting.
Sometimes that's exactly where a project should be.