Related
I am currently implementing a plugin that gets dynamically incrusted into a DIV (not an iframe) and am currently using Bulma as my CSS framework. The issue I am having is that since this plugin is going to be integrated into many sites, it will also inherit the styles applied to the parent website.
Due to many of the classes being a standard name in many frameworks, such as column, button, form, and others, this is creating a conflict.
I have been reviewing a couple of packages that either add a prefix to these classes as well as use a namespace.
Namespace:
The namespace route does not work since this does avoid our plugin from not interfering with any of the other sites' styles, the site's styles still affect ours.
Prefix Packages:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/gulp-class-prefix
The other route I was researching ways to add a prefix to all the classes from our plugin, such as -column, but I understand that this will output a CSS library with all the classes with the prefix but not my HTML files which have the class="column".
I am hoping to find a solution for this, as I would think this is, although not common, a recurring issue/question and I just haven't found the proper solution for this.
Any advice would be appreciated.
You can use the #layer css rule:
The #layer at-rule allows authors to explicitly layer their styles in the cascade, before specificity and order of appearance are considered.
Example:
/* styles.css */
#layer bootstrapFramework, myPluginStyles;
#import url("https://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/3.4.1/css/bootstrap.min.css")
layer(bootstrapFramework);
#import url("https://yourPluginStyles.css")
layer(myPluginStyles);
Doing this will override bootstrap classes with your plugin CSS classes. Due to the order of the layers.
Check out the browsers support for the rule.
You can read more about #layer CSS rule here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/#layer
You can also checkout Web Dev Simplified Channel by Kyle on youtube. Here is the link to the video: https://youtu.be/Pr1PezCc4FU
Hope this answers your question!
Yeah. That's fine. Just add a prefix to the HTML classes too. It should work.
Or you can choose to ditch CSS frameworks for the plugin and write the CSS for the necessary components. You just do a little reset for your component's HTML elements and you can expect a fairly consistent design across multiple different implementations.
I feel this may be just helpful too. custom HTML elements too.
Best of luck.
just use div-to-select * { all:revert }
then add the code for the div & bulma
Explanation
all: revert gets every thing to normal so it makes all other frameworks class's styles to default
please take a look on https://agilecss.com CSS framework and UI kit, it provides some unique features not available in other frameworks, for example all the common used UI elements without JavaScript.
Lets say that youre using Twitter Boostrap and you have their generic boostrap.css and other boostrap associated css files, and you want your own classes to have identical attributes to some of the given boostrap classes. To my understanding, you would not want to directly modify the css bootstrap files, but you would want to extend them by creating a custom.css file.
So without touching the boostrap files. How would I replicate a boostrap class for my own class? Would the only way be to copy and paste from the boostrap.css file. Or is there a way to do
.myownclass {
-- some command to replicate class 'alert alert-error' without repeating the CSS that has already been written
}
You could use a css preprocessor. Other ways already cited by other users are fine but using a css preprocessor is the best way.
Bootstrap is built using LESS, so you can use LESS. Take a look at here: http://bootstrap.lesscss.ru/less.html.
Also SASS can be used. According to me SASS is better. You find a tutorial here: http://www.1stwebdesigner.com/css/build-website-using-twitter-bootstrap-sass-1/
What are CSS preprocessors?
A browser can only understand CSS, as the styling technique for any DOM element being rendered. CSS, as a language has its own feature set, which at times might not be enough to create a clean and reusable chunk of rules. Eg. Not being able to reuse a collection of rules in multiple selectors, unavailability of variables which may lead to ambiguous pieces of data across the stylesheet. To overcome most of these limitations, the concept of a preprocessor was born – offering an advanced way of writing CSS, which extends the basic functionalities. This advanced code is later compiled as normal CSS code using respective compilers (which depends on what preprocessor you are using), which the browser will understand.
Should you use preprocessors?
The decision of adopting preprocessors for your next project, in my opinion, should be made after much analysis and solely depending on your expertise level and most importantly the project requirement and workflow of the team as a whole. Here are some tips that might help you come to a decision:
Not for beginners: If you are a beginner and starting to explore the fantastic world of CSS, I would suggest you get your hands dirty with normal CSS before moving into a framework or preprocessor of any sorts. It’s really important to understand and be able to use the core concepts of any language that you work with, and that’s true for CSS as much as any other programming language.
Are you a team of front end developers? As a team of front end developers, adopting preprocessors will be a great move. But only if somebody on the team really knows how to handle huge CSS files and structure them accordingly. By making use of the powerful features offered by the language, it is important to first structure the whole CSS into reusable chunks and define a strategy for CSS organization. Eg. Are you going with multiple CSS files for typography, forms, layout etc. Are you going for theme-able UI, where you might need to use variables extensively, etc.
Are you willing to cross the barrier? Adopting preprocessors means you are going to be implementing more programming concepts into your CSS coding approach. There will be a lot of concepts that are native to any basic programming language, which you might want to learn and implement, by using a preprocessor. This means, you will definitely need to brush-up your programming skills and might forever change the way you see a CSS code. If you are willing to cross this barrier, and feel ready to embrace the change confidently, this is for you.
In CSS this is not possible. The only way to do it, is to chain the classes in your html tags.
<div class="alert alert-error myownclass"></div>
If you are using less you can do it like this:
.myownclass {
.alert
.alert-error;
}
This will copy the settings from one class to another. The result will be the same as if you copy the contents of the class directly.
If you are using Sass you can do it without copying the class contents. Just reference the classes as shown below. This will not copy the contents, instead it will reference your custom class at the right position in your css code.
.myownclass {
#extend .alert;
#extend .alert-error;
}
Ref: Sass #extend
You would have to use LESS to avoid copy/paste:
.myClass {
.bootstrapClass;
}
Or you could use any of the other CSS preprocessors TBS has been ported to (Sass has one, not sure on the others).
You could give the element two classes - the original Bootstrap class, and then one of your own making. Then you would target it like this:
HTML
<h1 class="original_class myownclass">Hello</h1>
CSS
.original_class.myownclass {
// css code
}
Here's a little jsfiddle illustrating the concept: http://jsfiddle.net/ApEpr/
This does not require the use of a CSS preprocessor - it's just regular old CSS.
I know placing all your styles in a CSS file is the best thing to do as it is a lot neater.
But does it REALLY matter if the styles are inline or in a CSS?????
Edit below
My plan is to just place the styles in my MasterPage and all other pages will use the MasterPage....I believe the correct term is not "INLINE" but Embedded???
Some thoughts from one with experience, rather than a 'purist':
Storing all styles, for a large application, in one CSS file is not maintainable. You'll have perform a text search of the file to find the style you're looking for, or scroll a lot, and there's a higher chance that you'll overlook related styles when making an update.
If certain styles are particular to a page, not globally used, it is more maintainable to keep them in a style tag within the head tag.
Deep CSS inheritance hierarchies are also not maintainable. These are much, much worse than inline styles!
The CSS language itself does a poor job of applying styles to many elements in more complex structures. Consider lesscss, sass, or even jQuery for more than basic application of styles.
Lots of developers use HTML for presentation, mostly DIVs, when they think they are doing the right thing, or lecturing others. Some example above!
Using Inline CSS:
Repeat the same rule for every
element in the page.
More code and bigger file size to
transfer to the client.
Harder to maintain, suppose you want
to change the width to 200px, you
will need to go through all the page
and edit one by one.
inline:
<div style="width:100px; height:100px;"></div>
<div style="width:100px; height:100px;"></div>
external OR put css classes in the head [embedded styling]:
<div class="big"></div>
<div class="big"></div>
Based on your edit: that seems not to be inline CSS as in my example above, it is the same idea as using an external file, so if you want to do that go ahead, it is the same.
It matters because your code becomes very difficult to maintain or update if you use inline styles. Keeping your styles in style tags or separate CSS files allows you to comply with Don't Repeat Yourself, which is probably the most important development principle.
That being said, if you are absolutely certain that a piece of styling is unique to a given element, and also that it won't ever need to be tweaked, you can feel free to use inline styling. I sometimes use inline style for throwaway code and for things like landing pages (once they're done, they're done).
No but it is alot easier to make changes to the css if you only have to look one place instead of all your headers/inline
One other thing, your markup looks alot cleaner if you dont have eny css/javascript inline
When creating master pages I use in-line styles to create the basic layout of the page. For instance I include all of the styles that position the header at the top of the page, main content in the middle and footer at the bottom. Pretty much every style attribute related to positioning, I include in the masterpage as an inline style.
Storing styles in one document helps you to control on your entire project. Furthermore less code to maintain and applying changes.
It is a loth easier for maintenance... does it really matter depends on what you think what is important... why wouldn't you use a css file?
Do you mean putting your styles in the with or attaching them as 'style="x"' to your element?
There's several reasons for avoinding inline CSS.
1) Maintenance, it's easier to make changes to a code where all css is seperated from the markup itself. It also makes the code more readable as avoiding alot of inline css gives you less code.
<div class='test'></div>
is easier on the eye than:
<div style='background:yellow;width:10000px;height:10px;position:absolute;top:10003px;left:132032px;'></div>
When the css is inline you will also have a hard time finding where the code itself is and comparing styles. You will also often end up repeating the same code several times because you can't use classes.
2) Performance, CSS files can be gzipped, making for a smaller load. It's also easier for the browser to handle when it get js and css served as files.
3) Keeping with the best practice. Some other poor developer might want to edit your code later, and he sure would be happy if you kept away from inline CSS.
Now of course you can do CSS in the head of a document too, but why make your files bigger than they need to be? More code into the same file makes for more mess. And you can't gzip it if you do.
#Etienne , there is one disadvantage doing this way , if you want to deploy any changes to production you have make a build and push it.
If you maintain everything as css , you can just push the css file changes and invalidate the load balancer cache.
I thought this is a good point to mention.
When it is best to use inline style
Inline style is the best solution in situations when some style is created dynamically from user input via server-side code (ex, WordPress plugin), to be applied only to a single HTML element, in such cases insert it into an external CSS file causes only problems:
There is the need for a server-side code that creates a CSS class
with the dynamic style inside it.
There is the need for a server-side
code that write and save the .css file
There is the need for a
server-side code that is able to link the CSS classes created to the
correct HTML elements You must load an external CSS file for no
reason, this is a downgrade of performance (file size and 1 more HTTP
request)
In many cases, where the dynamic codes are just one or two,
the problems are startling clears: you must create a file of ex.
800bytes with 2 lines of code, and load it as external files.
Greater exposure to bugs. More a code is complex more are chances of bugs. The server-side codes above are very complex in comparison to the simplicity of the task they do.
Real use-case:
Imagine a scenario where a user wants to upload an image and use it as a background in an HTML element. With old rule is just style="background-image:URL()". with the new rule some code must create and save an external file, with just the code style="background-image:URL()", create a CSS class for it, write it in the HTML component, load this CSS file with just one line of code. Totally nonsense. Consider also that this operation must be done every time the user updates the image.
Final result:
Worst performance due to 1 more HTTP request and large, complex, server-side codes.
Wasting hours of time for authors to develop something that is not only useless but also creates real problems.
At least one more file in the project
Worst readability/comprehensibility of the code because a user must check the HTML and then find the CSS code of the linked CSS class to see the value of the style.
When it is best to use an external CSS file
In all other cases than the ones explained above, in short, when the style is fixed and never change you should put it in an external CSS file.
I have a table, with 10 columns. I want to control the width of each column.
Each column is unique, right now I create an external CSS style for each column:
div#my-page table#members th.name-col
{ width: 40px; }
I know there is a best practice to avoid inline style.
I do approve using external CSS for anything look'n'feel related: fonts, colors, images.
But is it really better to use external CSS in this case?
It does not incur extra maintenance cost.
It is easier to produce.
Cons I can think of:
If you have separate designers and development team - using inline styles will force designers to modify content-file (aspx in my case).
It might use more bandwidth.
Anything else I've missed?
IMPORTANT: I am asking about only one specific case where style used will ever apply to exactly one element, and is not part of the global-theme, such as width of one particular column.
There are lots of reasons why style="" is bad. I consider it a bug anywhere I encounter it in my codebase. Here are some reasons:
style= has higher priority than other CSS selectors making it hard to effect changes in the stylesheet; the stylesheet has to work harder to override these.
style= rules are hard to find in the code when you need to make global changes.
You download this CSS code with every page view.
If you have multiple stylesheets for the same HTML codebase your style= rules are not part of the stylesheet and thus are unchangeable.
However, if you are generating content and it's difficult to describe this content in a static CSS file, you might also need to generate the CSS to match that content. It is often easier to simply generate style= rules despite the drawbacks. If, however, your generated content can be easily described in a CSS file, because the generated structure doesn't often change, or because you can easily generate HTML AND a CSS file at the same time, then it's probably better to not use style=.
Some suggestions for alternatives to style= that may be appropriate:
Instead of inline styles, use class names. Works well if you have lots of columns in your table that have the same properties, and which you expect to always have the same properties. Then your stylesheet can remain fixed while your HTML is fluid, since the CSS only references classes. This is probably the approach I'd use.
Use JQuery or some other javascript library to style your objects programmatically after the page loads.
Easier to produce is not really a valid argument - people like splitting huge chunks of code into smaller chunks - same with code and markup.
However:
+ No extra HTTP connection (unless you are already downloading a .css file anyway)
- Every time the page gets sent, this CSS is sent with => more bandwith
- Designers need to modify CSS in Application Code (bad practice)
Usually, you shouldn't - unless it's a really well thought through performance tweak as google does.
When I see website starter code and examples, the CSS is always in a separate file, named something like "main.css", "default.css", or "Site.css". However, when I'm coding up a page, I'm often tempted to throw the CSS in-line with a DOM element, such as by setting "float: right" on an image. I get the feeling that this is "bad coding", since it's so rarely done in examples.
I understand that if the style will be applied to multiple objects, it's wise to follow "Don't Repeat Yourself" (DRY) and assign it to a CSS class to be referenced by each element. However, if I won't be repeating the CSS on another element, why not in-line the CSS as I write the HTML?
The question: Is using in-line CSS considered bad, even if it will only be used on that element? If so, why?
Example (is this bad?):
<img src="myimage.gif" style="float:right" />
Having to change 100 lines of code when you want to make the site look different. That may not apply in your example, but if you're using inline css for things like
<div style ="font-size:larger; text-align:center; font-weight:bold">
on each page to denote a page header, it would be a lot easier to maintain as
<div class="pageheader">
if the pageheader is defined in a single stylesheet so that if you want to change how a page header looks across the entire site, you change the css in one place.
However, I'll be a heretic and say that in your example, I see no problem. You're targeting the behavior of a single image, which probably has to look right on a single page, so putting the actual css in a stylesheet would probably be overkill.
The advantage for having a different css file are
Easy to maintain your html page
Change to the Look and feel will be easy and you can have support for many themes on your pages.
Your css file will be cached on the browser side. So you will contribute a little on internet traffic by not loading some kbs of data every time a the page is refreshed or user navigates your site.
The html5 approach to fast css prototyping
or: <style> tags are no longer just for the head any more!
Hacking CSS
Let's say you're debugging, and want to modify your page-css, make a certain section only look better. Instead of creating your styles inline the quick and dirty and un-maintainable way, you can do what I do these days and take a staged approach.
No inline style attribute
Never create your css inline, by which I mean: <element style='color:red'> or even <img style='float:right'> It's very convenient, but doesn't reflect actual selector specificity in a real css file later, and if you keep it, you'll regret the maintenance load later.
Prototype with <style> instead
Where you would have used inline css, instead use in-page <style> elements. Try that out! It works fine in all browsers, so is great for testing, yet allows you to gracefully move such css out to your global css files whenever you want/need to! ( *just be aware that the selectors will only have page-level specificity, instead of site-level specificity, so be wary of being too general) Just as clean as in your css files:
<style>
.avatar-image{
float:right
}
.faq .warning{
color:crimson;
}
p{
border-left:thin medium blue;
// this general of a selector would be very bad, though.
// so be aware of what'll happen to general selectors if they go
// global
}
</style>
Refactoring other people's inline css
Sometimes you're not even the problem, and you're dealing with someone else's inline css, and you have to refactor it. This is another great use for the <style> in page, so that you can directly strip the inline css and immediate place it right on the page in classes or ids or selectors while you're refactoring. If you are careful enough with your selectors as you go, you can then move the final result to the global css file at the end with just a copy & paste.
It's a little hard to transfer every bit of css immediately to the global css file, but with in-page <style> elements, we now have alternatives.
In addition to other answers.... Internationalization.
Depending of the language of the content - you often need to adapt the styling of an element.
One obvious example would be right-to-left languages.
Let's say you used your code:
<img src="myimage.gif" style="float:right" />
Now say you want your website to support rtl languages - you would need:
<img src="myimage.gif" style="float:left" />
So now, if you want to support both languages, there's no way to assign a value to float using inline styling.
With CSS this is easily taken care of with the lang attribute
So you could do something like this:
img {
float:right;
}
html[lang="he"] img { /* Hebrew. or.. lang="ar" for Arabic etc */
float:left;
}
Demo
Inline CSS will always, always win in precedence over any linked-stylesheet CSS. This can cause enormous headache for you if and when you go and write a proper cascading stylesheet, and your properties aren't applying correctly.
It also hurts your application semantically: CSS is about separating presentation from markup. When you tangle the two together, things get much more difficult to understand and maintain. It's a similar principle as separating database code from your controller code on the server side of things.
Finally, imagine that you have 20 of those image tags. What happens when you decide that they should be floated left?
This only applies to handwritten code. If you generate code, I think that it's okay to use inline styles here and then, especially in cases where elements and controls need special treatment.
DRY is a good concept for handwritten code, but in machine-generated code, I opt for "Law of Demeter": "What belongs together, must stay together". It's easier to manipulate code that generates Style tags than to edit a global style a second time in a different and "remote" CSS file.
The answer to your question: it depends...
Using inline CSS is much harder to maintain.
For every property you want to change, using inline CSS requires you to look for the corresponding HTML code, instead of just looking inside clearly-defined and hopefully well-structured CSS files.
The whole point of CSS is to separate content from its presentation. So in your example you are mixing content with presentation and this may be "considered harmful".
In addition to the other answers, another concern is that it violates the recommended Content Security Policy from MDN, https://infosec.mozilla.org/guidelines/web_security#content-security-policy
The justification they use is that inline javascript is harmful, XSS, etc., but it doesn't justify why inline styles should also be disabled. Maybe someone can comment as to why, but until then, I'll just rely on appeal-to-authority and claim: it's a security best practice to avoid inline styles.
Code how you like to code, but if you are passing it on to someone else it is best to use what everyone else does. There are reasons for CSS, then there are reasons for inline. I use both, because it is just easier for me. Using CSS is wonderful when you have a lot of the same repetition. However, when you have a bunch of different elements with different properties then that becomes a problem. One instance for me is when I am positioning elements on a page. Each element as a different top and left property. If I put that all in a CSS that would really annoy the mess out of me going between the html and css page. So CSS is great when you want everything to have the same font, color, hover effect, etc. But when everything has a different position adding a CSS instance for each element can really be a pain. That is just my opinion though. CSS really has great relevance in larger applications when your having to dig through code. Use Mozilla web developer plugin and it will help you find the elements IDs and Classes.
I think that even if you want to have a certain style for one element, you have to consider the possibility that you may want to apply the same style on the same element on different pages.
One day somebody may ask to change or add more stylistic changes to the same element on every page. If you had the styles defined in an external CSS file, you would only have to make changes there, and it would be reflected in the same element in all of the pages, thus saving you a headache. :-)
Even if you only use the style once as in this example you've still mixed CONTENT and DESIGN. Lookup "Separation of concerns".
Using inline styles violates the Separation of Concerns principle, as you are effectively mixing markup and style in the same source file. It also, in most cases, violates the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle since they are only applicable to a single element, whereas a class can be applied to several of them (and even be extended through the magic of CSS rules!).
Furthermore, judicious use of classes is beneficial if your site contains scripting. For example, several popular JavaScript libs such as JQuery depend heavily on classes as selectors.
Finally, using classes adds additional clarity to your DOM, since you effectively have descriptors telling you what kind of element a given node in it is. For example:
<div class="header-row">It's a row!</div>
Is a lot more expressive than:
<div style="height: 80px; width: 100%;">It's...something?</div>
Inline CSS is good for machine-generated code, and can be fine when most visitors only browse one page on a site, but one thing it can't do is handle media queries to allow different looks for screens of different sizes. For that, you need to include the CSS either in an external style sheet or in an internal style tag.
In-page css is the in-thing at the moment because Google rates it as giving a better user experience than css loaded from a separate file. A possible solution is to put the css in a text file, load it on the fly with php, and output it into the document head. In the <head> section include this:
<head> ...
<?php
$codestring = file_get_contents("styles/style1.txt");
echo "<style>" . $codestring . "</style>";
?>
... </head>
Put the required css in styles/style1.txt and it'll get spat out in the <head> section of your document. This way, you'll have in-page css with the benefit of using a style template, style1.txt, which can be shared by any and all pages, allowing site-wide style changes to be made via only that one file. Furthermore, this method doesn't require the browser to request separate css files from the server (thus minimising retrieval / rendering time), since everything is delivered at once by php.
Having implemented this, individual one-time-only styles can be manually coded where needed.
According to the AMP HTML Specification it is necessary to put CSS in your HTML file (vs an external stylesheet) for performance purposes. This does not mean inline CSS but they do specify no external stylesheets.
An incomplete list of optimizations such a serving system might do is:
Replace image references with images sized to the viewer’s viewport.
Inline images that are visible above the fold.
Inline CSS variables.
Preload extended components.
Minify HTML and CSS.
Personally, I think the hatred of inline css is just ridiculous. Hardcore cult behaviour, people just sheepishly repeat "Separation of concerns!". Yes, there are times where if there is a repeating element and you will need repeated styling to use a class targeted from a CSS file, but most of the time it improves speed of development and CLARITY OF CODE to put the style inline, it's great if I can look at the code and see that there is a custom margin height, it helps me picture the HTML document as a whole, instead of some named class that gives me little insight into which styles will be applied.
So I will be the contrarian here and say that inline css is great and that people who scream at you for using it are just following what they have been told without actually giving it any original unbiased consideration.
Even though I totally agree with all the answers given above that writing CSS in a separate file is always better from code reusability, maintainability, better separation of concerns there are many scenarios where people prefer inline CSS in their production code -
The external CSS file causes one extra HTTP call to browser and thus additional latency. Instead if the CSS is inserted inline then browser can start parsing it right away. Especially over SSL HTTP calls are more costly and adds up additional latency to the page. There are many tools available that helps to generate static HTML pages (or page snippet) by inserting external CSS files as inline code. These tools are used at the Build and Release phase where the production binary is generated. This way we get all the advantages of external CSS and also the page becomes faster.
In addition to other answers, you cant target the pseudo-classes or pseudo-elements in inline CSS
We have created a template-driven artifact generator that provides an include file capability for any kind of text artifact -- HTML, XML, computer languages, unstructured text, DSV, etc. (E.g., it's great for handling common Web or manual page headers and footers without scripting.)
Once you have that and use it to provide "style" tags inside your "head" tag, the "separation of concerns" argument goes away, to be replaced by "we have to regenerate after every change to the template" and "we have to debug the template from what it generates". Those gripes have been around since the first computer language to get a preprocessor (or someone started using M4).
On balance, we think the meta-izing capability of either a CSS file or "style" tags is cleaner and less error-prone than element-level styling. But it does require some professional judgment, so newbies and scatterbrains don't bother.