First of all, I want to say that I like the vibrant colors, small size, and checkable buttons. Smaller (and JS-less) CSS frameworks is something that I've been crusading for for years now.
Secondly, I'm the creator of Min (http://minfwk.com), a fellow small CSS framework. Min is only 995 bytes - 5 times smaller. It also is more widely used, has feature parity with Bootstrap through the Min Bootstrap plugin, supports IE5.5+, is valid CSS, and doesn't have browser bugs. There's also an easy way to migrate from Bootstrap to Min (the Bootstrap->Min converter.)
Why would someone use Picnic.css rather than Min? I'd like to see the advantages of Picnic.css straight from the creator, since it seems you're answering questions in this thread. It seems one of the advantages you're touting is the "invasive"ness, which is a cool approach (I don't see Min taking that approach for various reasons but I think it can be a better choice for many use cases.) Another seems to be the grid naming system. What other things would make someone prefer Picnic.css for their project?
Secondly, I'm the creator of Min (http://minfwk.com), a fellow small CSS framework. Min is only 995 bytes - 5 times smaller. It also is more widely used, has feature parity with Bootstrap through the Min Bootstrap plugin, supports IE5.5+, is valid CSS, and doesn't have browser bugs. There's also an easy way to migrate from Bootstrap to Min (the Bootstrap->Min converter.)
Why would someone use Picnic.css rather than Min? I'd like to see the advantages of Picnic.css straight from the creator, since it seems you're answering questions in this thread. It seems one of the advantages you're touting is the "invasive"ness, which is a cool approach (I don't see Min taking that approach for various reasons but I think it can be a better choice for many use cases.) Another seems to be the grid naming system. What other things would make someone prefer Picnic.css for their project?