You might want to give it a non-Windows name. Classic95 UI Kit or something. Calling it "Windows 95 UI Kit" implies it's from Windows 95 and will likely attract the attention of Microsoft lawyers who are obligated to swat down any potential trademark confusion in order to protect the Windows trademark.

Microsoft might overlook the copyright violation, but legally they cannot ignore the trademark violation or they risk losing the Windows trademark.

Anything WinXXX isn't particularly safe. For example, they went after Winternals, who had to change their name to SysInternals (and were eventually acqui-hired by MS). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation#Trademark... for others.

Any ideas for other names?

I like the one he suggested - Classic95 UI Kit

This looks great. But curious:

> 100% Valid W3C HTML Files and made for awesome developers just like you.

Why does a README try to sell itself by talking down to the reader like they're a five year old?

Thanks. Well, I never thought of it that way. How would you rather change the text?

"100% Valid W3C HTML Files". That's all. There are some times when mentioning the motivation is relevant and might be important, but "a developer's tool made for developers just like you, a developer" isn't it.

Done :)

Small issue, but maybe not worth spending too much effort to fix, given the low demographic it may affect:

Using firefox 68 ESR on Windows (at work), the text in the demo page looks like it's been strike-through, it is barely readable.

Each line of text has two horizontal lines (one pixel high each) filled with transparency...

Disabling the "Windows 65" font family solves the problem - but then Segoe UI is used.

Thanks for pointing this out! I'll add it as an issue on the repo.