I don't know how exactly this new feature must be work in Blazor, but I think that the current implementation work wrong. Below some typical situation:
Layout for some blazor component:
<button>
<span>Some Text</span>
<Icon> ... </Icon>
</button>
source scss file ...
that will be translated in to something like ...
after apply of CSS isolation we have :-( ...
Why NOT THIS????
And of course in DOM after rendering we have only button with scope id "b-l4md7xqlo6", but not span itself! Span don't have this attribute, and in my situation I don't need it.
In other words, after applying of scope id, the result CSS not equal exactly to my declared CSS!
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Nikolai
Related
I have to create a primary heading component, below is my markup along with CSS classes. I'm following BEM naming convention for class name.
I have h1 element consists of two spans. One span for main heading text, and second span for sub heading text. The main and sub are variations of my heading.
I have not specified the Element class (Which could be heading-primary__text ) and i have directly attached modifier classes to span elements.
<h1 class="heading-primary">
<span class="heading-primary--main">Video Background Option</span>
<span class="heading-primary--sub">One Page Parallax</span>
</h1>
Is that a right way to follow BEM methodology without specifying Elements classes & attaching Block's modifiers classes to Elements(span)? Because i don't need elements classes.
Is there any alternate?
While this is subjective, and as per the convinience of the project . i'd recommend doing something like this- as you already have a header-primary_text element class
<h1 class="heading-primary">
<span class="heading-primary_text">Video Background Option</span>
<!--create a modifier -->
<span class="heading-primary_text--sub">One Page Parallax</span>
</h1>
In this way you can make the sub a modifier class for the subtext.
More info can be seen here https://en.bem.info/methodology/quick-start/#modifier
Hope this helps :)
I think there is a much simpler way to do this just using basic HTML. You only want to have one h1 per page and since you said that your second span of your h1 is a "subheading" I feel like you would be way better off marking that one as an h2 instead of two spans of different context within one h1 heading! Always good to use the built in benefits of HTML first if you can.
No, it is not the right way. You cannot use block (or element) modifier alone on the HTML tag without specifying the block (or element) class itself.
Please refer to BEM documentation here: https://en.bem.info/methodology/quick-start/#modifier
A modifier can't be used alone From the BEM perspective, a modifier
can't be used in isolation from the modified block or element. A
modifier should change the appearance, behavior, or state of the
entity, not replace it.
Here is a code example from the docs:
<!-- Correct. The `search-form` block has the `theme` modifier with the value `islands` -->
<form class="search-form search-form_theme_islands">
<input class="search-form__input">
<button class="search-form__button">Search</button>
</form>
<!-- Incorrect. The modified class `search-form` is missing -->
<form class="search-form_theme_islands">
<input class="search-form__input">
<button class="search-form__button">Search</button>
</form>
You mentioned that you don't need an element class, this topic is also covered in BEM docs
https://en.bem.info/methodology/faq/#why-include-the-block-name-in-modifier-and-element-names
semuzaboi's suggestion sounds as a good alternative to me.
First of all, elements are specified after two __ like block__element_modifier.
Secondly, yes. Blocks may not have any elemenets inside, but rather have modifiers (most common case a block with lang modifiers for Internationalization (block_lang_ru))
PS as well as element may not have any modifiers inside. But block can not be nested inside another one. They should be placed inside one directory on the same level.
I'm about to start a new project using Aurelia and I'm considering to use it in conjunction with CSS BEM methodology.
First question: Is this basically considered a good match or are there any alternatives which "fit" better with Aurelia?
Main question:
Best explained with an example for some custom Aurelia view (an app header):
<template>
<div class="AppHeader">
<span class="AppHeader-logo"></span>
<span class="AppHeader-text"></span>
<app-menu></app-menu>
</div>
</template>
When embedded into another view, this leads to a resulting DOM like this (simplified):
<app-header>
<div class="AppHeader">
<span class="AppHeader-logo"></span>
<span class="AppHeader-text"></span>
<app-menu>
<!-- ... -->
</app-menu>
</div>
</app-header>
Obviously, the wrapper div with the AppHeader class is kind of superfluous since there's also the app-header tag. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be possible to assign the CSS class AppHeader (which is needed for BEM) to the base element of the view (the template tag in the view file).
Are there any alternative ways that I'm not aware of or is it considered "good" practice (or at least acceptable) to have many wrapper elements inside views which somehow bloat the DOM?
I just realized, that putting custom classes on the custom elements themselves (the template) actually works, so I can simply write something like this:
<template class="AppHeader">
<span class="AppHeader-logo"></span>
<span class="AppHeader-text"></span>
<app-menu></app-menu>
</template>
Edit / Additional info
This won't work if the view is a "base view" of a route since the template element won't be rendered at all in this scenario but is replaced by the router-view element.
I believe that even a hundred extra DOM nodes is not a problem for contemporary browsers but if it's really important to avoid them you may try custom tags instead of classes (see list of restrictions here https://en.bem.info/methodology/faq/#why-are-custom-tags-not-used-for-blocks-in-bem).
Perhaps the #containerless will solve your problems:
In your view model:
#containerless
export class AppHeader {
...
}
In this way, the <app-header> container will not be rendered.
If your component is a view-only component, you can declare containerless in the <template> tag:
<template containerless>
<div class="AppHeader">
<span class="AppHeader-logo"></span>
<span class="AppHeader-text"></span>
<app-menu></app-menu>
</div>
</template>
This question may sound a bit weird/novice/stupid. Please bear with me.
The below code is a small portion of a webpage I have created using CSS,
HTML and coldfusion.
<head>
---------------------Part 1--------------------------------------
<CFIF CompareNoCase('#aid#', 0)>
<cfinclude template="show.cfm">
<cfabort>
</CFIF>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<link rel="stylesheet" href="styles/style.css?1322665623">
</head>
---------------------------PART 2------------------------------------
<body id="wp-home">
<div id="wrapper">
<div class="header left">
<h1>Name Of Client</h1>
<div class="tagline">
<span class="left blair">home</span>
<span class="headerline"></span>
<span class="right blair">antiques</span>
</div>
</div>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As you see, I have included a css file, style.css which contains all the style classes required to display PART 2 correctly.
Problem is, whenever part 1 is active ( is true), the same
css is applied to elements in file SHOW.CFM also. This totally messes up the page's original display.
For the time being I have placed a tag below the link to stop page from processing and the css file being loaded.
I have checked show.css multiple times and can confirm that no class from styles.css is used in it.
Hence, my question is if I can stop the styles from style.css to be applied on elements loaded from SHOW.CFM
Pardon me if the question is insanely stupid ;)
If a selector matches then a rule will apply until overridden by a rule (which sets the same property) further down the cascade.
You can either change your selectors to stop them matching the elements you don't want them to match, or you can override all your rules in that section.
HTML5 allows scoped stylesheets, but only Firefox supports it so far. There is also a polyfill JavaScript.
Therefore, you'll have to adapt your markup and styles so that it only matches part2, and not part1. In a pinch, you can precede every selector with #wrapper. For example, if a rule says a{color:red}, substitute that with #wrapper a {color:red;}.
By the way, part1 should probably be a child of <body> instead of <head>.
Use the pseudo-class :not():
.myStyle:not(.classWhereYouDontWantToApplyTheStyle) {
...
}
What about using if else instead of just if to determine which css file you should include? In other words, include styles.css only when part 2 displays. That way, you avoid inheritance and scoping issues altogether.
I'm using html5, JQuery Mobile and KnockoutJS, I Have a foreach template that renders a grid like GUI from an observable array.
However, when I add items to the bound array, the styles are not applied to any new items.
They appear unstyled, most of the times.
some times they appear with style, but once the styling fails, it stays broken for as long as I run my app.
Does anyone have any idea how to resolve this problem?
Snippet:
<div id="timeEntryList" data-bind="foreach: timeEntries">
<div data-role="header" data-theme="c">
<h1>some header</h1>
The odd thing is that it works sometimes.
Hard to guess without any code. But I guess you 're saying jqm doesn't render properly after dynamically adding elements. That's right it doesn't. I guess it's like the list. And you probably can do something like $('#mylist').listview('refresh'); but I don't know what sort of component you're talking about.
you can find more info in the documentation
jQM might not support more than one data-role="header" section. I would try conforming to their standard page layout with one header, one content and one footer section and see if that helps.
I've found that if I update my KO observables in pagebeforeshow I don't have to use .listview('refresh')
I'm trying to make a "clickable" region.
<a
style="display: block"
href="http://stackoverflow.com">
StackOverflow
</a>
A is an inline element but the CSS made it a block.
If the above is valid, then the following should be valid too:
<a
style="display: block"
href="http://stackoverflow.com">
<div>Some DIV that links to StackOverflow</div>
</a>
But validator.w3.org shouldn't be flagging it as invalid (which it is right now).
If it is invalid, what would be the most proper way to make a block element "clickable" and redirects to an arbitrary page. I'm aware I can use JS onclick to achieve this behaviour, but how will Google see this?
The validator is correct - you can't put <div> inside <a>, no matter what you do afterwards with CSS.
The proper thing to do is what you did in your first code block - <a style="display: block;">
If you want something inside that you can do <a style="display: block;"><span style="display: block;">
Don't confuse valid HTML with valid CSS. It is valid to use the display css property to make inline elements block. It is not valid to put block HTML elements within inline ones.
It doesn't follow that the one being valid implies the other has to be. There are nesting rules for HTML, and div-within-anchor doesn't fit them, which is why validator.w3.org is giving you a hard time.
If you truly must have a div, rather than text, images or <span style="display: block">s, that's clickable, then yes, you will have to use an onclick event. Google will not understand or acknowledge the existence of the link. (You may be able to cope with this by having an anchor on something that anchors can apply to, in addition to the onclick div.)
Something I've done in the past with this sort of problem is invoke the click on the parent element (My example uses jQuery):
<div class="link">
Visit Google
</div>
$(".link").click(function(){
document.location = $(this).find("a:first").attr("href");
});
With styles you could make the entire area appear to be the link by setting the cursor, a roll-over state, etc.
First you need to know whether you want to use strict or transitional XHTML (frameset is not useful here). Then you look into the DTD (link) and you'll see that A cannot have a DIV inside.
Why don't you use an area tag for this? It is supposed to define the clickable area in an imagemap.
Google bots now follow simple javascript links, so using JS on the onClick event of your div is an option. Other search engine bots don't do that, but sooner or later they will.
More info in this article.