1) Naming conventions

Current UI kit

• Uses size-tier names: 5XL, 4XL, 3XL, 2XL, XL, LG, MD, SM, XS.
• The names read like Tailwind’s scale, but they are not consistently the same system:
  • 5XL/4XL/3XL/2XL/XL look like scale labels.
  • LG/MD/SM/XS are also scale labels, but they shift the naming pattern mid-list.

DaisyUI

• Typography is primarily Tailwind utility-driven (text-sm, text-lg, leading-6, font-semibold, etc.).
• DaisyUI does not introduce its own semantic typography tier names. It expects Tailwind’s naming.

Direct takeaway

• Naming is already very close to Tailwind/DaisyUI conventions, but it is a custom tier system rather than a direct use of Tailwind’s text-* names.

2) Reusability in components

Current UI kit

• Each tier bundles multiple decisions:
  • font family + weight + case guidance
  • desktop/tablet size + mobile size
  • line-height
• That bundling is reusable if components always want the same pairings, but it is less composable than DaisyUI’s approach.

DaisyUI

• Expects you to compose typography per component with utilities.
• Responsive behavior is typically expressed at the usage site (md:text-lg) rather than baked into a named tier.

Direct takeaway

• Typography tiers are reusable as “packages,” but they do not map 1:1 to DaisyUI’s “compose-at-use” model without a translation layer (documentation or implementation mapping).