was not around so I couldn’t borrow it from there. Rather, the syntax was inspired by X resources from the X11 Window System. The reason for changing the CSS syntax from font.size to font- size was twofold. First, the hyphen makes it look more like written English, which improves human readability. Second, DSSSL and DSSSL-Lite used hyphenated property names. https://dev.opera.com/articles/css-twenty-years-hakon/
I?”. But beneath questions like “how do I make my pages look the same on every platform” and “how can I make my fonts appear identical on the Macintosh and Windows” is an underlying question – “how do I control the user’s browser?” Indeed, the word control turns up with surprising frequency. Underpinning all this is the belief that designers are controllers.
*not* create a programming language. DSSSL was emerging from the SGML world and that scared us. So did the Turing- completeness. In short, you can't tell if a program will terminate or not -- you could end up in endless loops. Therefore we chose a simpler model where you just made declarations. - personal correspondace, Bruce and Håkon Wium Lie
would plague all Scheme like languages: too many parenthesis. Additionally, it was arguably too complete of a spec when it was finally published, making it intimidating to browser developers. The DSSSL spec included over 210 separate styleable properties. The Languages Which Almost Became CSS - Zack Bloom
would mean that styles would have to be updated as the HTML document loads. Languages like DSSSL were completely out, as they could perform operations on the document itself, which would not be entirely available when the rendering is to begin. https://eager.io/blog/the-languages-which-almost-were-css/
to be a programming language because I wanted different programs to do different things with it: present it differently, extract tables of contents, index it, and so on. Sir Uncle Timbo https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles.html#PLP
a common design choice. The low power end of the scale is typically simpler to design, implement and use, but the high power end of the scale has all the attraction of being an open-ended hook into which anything can be placed: a door to uses bounded only by the imagination of the programmer. Sir Uncle Timbo https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles.html#PLP
who have used CSS? CSS is hard because its properties interact, often in unexpected ways. Because when you set one of them, you're never just setting that one thing. That one thing combines and bounces off of and contradicts with a dozen other things, including default things that you never actually set yourself. https://css-tricks.com/css-is-awesome/
mind that someone thought the default behavior should be to just have the text honk right out of the box, instead of just making the box bigger like my nice, sensible tables had always done.” - Steven Frank https://css-tricks.com/css-is-awesome/#comment-1609829
the ways in which CSS is bad. You are right. overflow is easy to deal with. Others (specificity, alignment, box sizing models, maintainability of large stylesheets, obscure hidden rules and assumptions, etc.) are numerous and overwhelming.” https://twitter.com/JohnHargrove/status/985630830704852998
mechanism to CSS: inheritance and cascading. Inheritance was/is is fairly well understood, it's used in many other computer languages as well. Cascading, however, was something new and in some ways it competes with inheritance. I can see reasons for not liking it, but to me the benefit of not having to provide complete style sheets makes up for that. Howcome, June 2018, private conversation
this is, never be more explicit than you need to be... Work with CSS, instead of against it. CSS is weird. It's unlike any other code, and that makes a lot of programmers uncomfortable. But used wisely it can, in fact, be awesome. Brandon Smith https://css-tricks.com/css-is-awesome/
is global • Order affects cascade • Dependency system - @import • Relies on markup structure (classes, IDs, descendant/ strucural combinators) • Breaks silently
unexpected behaviors, rules, names and other idiosyncrasies. It's amazingly powerful, for sure, but it is loaded with cruft https://twitter.com/JohnHargrove/status/985631372764221440
by now, specificity is is one of CSS’ most troublesome features, and is an area that soon becomes hard to manage on projects of any reasonable size. Specificity is a trait best avoided, which is why we don’t use IDs in CSS, and we don’t nest selectors unless absolutely necessary. Harry Roberts, October 2014 https://csswizardry.com/2014/10/the-specificity-graph/
remember to camelCase properties then spending 10min pulling hair out when you do forget” “the cryptic domain-specific languages that each of the frameworks do just ever so slightly differently”
then I copy paste from inspector, only to have to re-write it as a JSON object” “Lack of linting, autocomplete, and css plug-ins for colors/ incrementing/ etc”. “Not a gripe. But a concern: Performance.”
allow multiple pseudo-elements per selector." > What's the reason for that? What's the reason it's not currently allowed? Pseudo-elements aren't just filtering which element is selected: they actually create structure in the box tree. So if we have a pseudo element attached to a pseudo-element, it creates a box structure that doesn't currently exist, and pseudo-element box structures can be particularly intricate and complicated to implement since many of them don't fit into the box's tree structure. Therefore we intend to only allow specific combinations--those that are needed for particular use cases.
died for me ... CSS could be perfectly static if given the right tools, that's exactly what stylable does. It gives you the tools you need in CSS so that you don't need to do a bunch of dynamic shit in JS. Making it static is a huge performance win” core team member of Yarn, Babel and TC39 https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/929675977067655170
means we've intentionally restricted some of the features you're allowed to use in a Block file to ensure we can optimize your stylesheets as much as possible! https://github.com/linkedin/css-blocks#its-just-css-mostly
I didn’t say it before, I’ll say it again: with Stylable, you get CSS, and every part of CSS. This seems like a “duh” observation, but this is significant if you’ve ever battled with a CSS-in-JS framework over a lost or “hacky” implementation of a basic CSS feature. If this is all you’re looking for, stop reading here and try it out!” Drew Powers https://blog.envylabs.com/stylable-the-good-the-bad-the-weird-f1ee137311a4
allowed you to target any node in an element’s Shadow DOM. Apart from being terribad for performance, they also required the user of an element to be intimately familiar with some random element’s implementation, which was unlikely and lead to them just breaking the whole element by accident. Monica Dinculescu
don’t allow you to style arbitrary elements inside a shadow tree: they only allow you to style elements that an author has tagged as being eligible for styling This is a lot of effort on the element author, but easy on the theme user. https://meowni.ca/posts/part-theme-explainer/
team (especially Tom and Lichtash) ! https://pixabay.com/en/potatoes-vegetables-erdfrucht-bio-1585060/ ! https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-eiffel-tower-paris-811715/ ! https://thenounproject.com/icon/38411/ ! https://pixabay.com/en/eiffel-tower-long-exposure-lights-1156146/ No potatoes were harmed during the making of this presentation.
brucel
jacobian
jnunemaker
sugarenia
moore
yeseniaperezcruz
rmw
maggiecrowley
dotmariusz
geoffreycrofte
kevinliebholz
chrislema
rocio
![@brucel Inheritance and Cascade We also added [a] fairly complex](https://files.speakerdeck.com/presentations/2a4928fe933446aab0e5cf6dbc6a46e0/slide_25.jpg){kind=link}
