Merge with Node Class

@Peter or @berenddeboer: Please mark this issue "won't fix" if you are not able to contribute directly to it.

Hi Peter Törnstrand,

Thanks very much for posting this feature request, it certainly sounds interesting.

It seems that Node Class

allows users to add custom CSS classes to any node through the node/add interface.

(Quoted from its project page)

Block Class seems to provide a different function by allowing

users to add classes to any block through the block's configuration interface.

(Quoted from its project page)

As much as I can see the relationship (between the two modules) around injecting custom CSS classes in the markup/theme, I'm not completely clear how you would exactly envision these two modules to be merged.
Besides, some users might argue it would be better to keep these modules separated to leave the choice to users to only use Block Class, or Node Class, separately, if they wanted to.
On top of that, both modules have very specific names (with block or node in them), that wouldn't be very explicit if one was to be included in the other.

We could perhaps imagine creating a new module, moving forward with latest API developments (Drupal 8.x) based on Entities (just an idea from the top of my head) and provide some kind of property that could be attached to blocks, nodes, taxonomy terms, users, etc....
But in this case, I would assume we would probably be discussing this feature/module idea in a different place, not necessarily in this issue tracker (perhaps called entity_class, for example, but that wouldn't be block_class or node_class anymore, would it?).

Could you please elaborate a little bit more on how you would approach this problem?
Could you please provide more information on your vision of the module that would be resulting from a merge between Block Class and Node Class?
Could you please provide more information on the work that would be expected for this feature request?

For the time being, I allowed myself to set this ticket to postponed (maintainer needs more info), since we would like to hear your opinion on these comments and more particularly if you would have any vision of how something like this could be moved forward.

Feel free to change the status again to active or needs review, at anytime, if you feel like we should get our focus back on this feature request.

Please let me know if you would have any objections, questions, comments, recommendations, suggestions or concerns on any points/aspects in my reply or this ticket in general, I would surely be glad to explain in more details or provide more information.

Any feedback, comments, testing, reporting or questions would be highly appreciated.
Thanks very much in advance.
Cheers!

Closing as per #2