When starting a new project it is always the question which tools, frameworks and libraries to use. I often included the Eric Meyer CSS Reset, but this time I will switch to Normalize.css. I understand it as a customisable starting point rather than a library. I suggest to include the normalize.css file and overwrite specific parts of it. But i am not really sure, if this is the correct way. It would be hard to update the normalize.css file than. It seems Normalize.css is not sure either.
From the documentation at github.com
Normalize.css is a customisable CSS file that […]
README.md, Line 3
It is recommended that you include the normalize.css file as untouched library code.
README.md, Line 21
What would you suggest?
I am guessing this will get closed as it is a question open for debate. However, I would still like to add something to the discussion.
As normalize.css (or any reset css file that I know of) is distributed as a plugin package file, there should be no fault in altering it to your needs. It can be compared to the search for the right break-points for media queries. The truth is, there is no one-way street to follow, it's a delta: every one has to adapt to their project. This also means every developer has to write project specific code. One project might need the first breakpoint to be at 480 px, whereas another project doesn't take mobile devices into account any way, but it does provide very high-resolution displays. Every project is unique, and your code should reflect that.
That being said, exceptions can be made. Libraries, plugins and particular snippets can be used over and over again without any modification. In the case of libraries and plugins, there is some freedom in use per project by means of arguments passed to call to the library or function. For instance, when using jQuery, I will not always write the same code in my scripts file, of course not. That's because a library is only a means to an end, and not a stand-alone package that provides functionality in itself. A plugin (in the wide context) such as, for instance, Modernizr, is another beast all together.(1) The question then arises, what is a CSS reset in this respect? Most will say it's a plugin, and I agree. But should plugins be edited?
I think they can.
Take for example Wordpress plugins. Loads of topics are to be found on the internet concerned this discussion: should they be edited or not. Many peeps advise against it. I don't, and never will. For the simple blogger that wants to add functionality to his or her blog, a plugin in itself should suffice. But we, as web developers, might want more options (or less, to optimise the experience or speed). As long as the dev in question takes updates into account, altering a plugin has no consequence. Why should it?
The same goes for a CSS reset. As I said before, every project has (a) specific stylesheet(s), often one overwriting values in the other. But what good have you on a rule such as this:
/* normalize.css */
h1 {
font-size: 2em;
margin: 0.67em 0;
}
which you then overwrite by your own rules:
/* your-stylesheet.css */
h1 {
font-size: 1.8em;
margin: 0 0 0.8em;
line-height: 1.24;
}
This is ridiculous, doesn't it seem so? I would then advise to edit normalize.css.
However...
Everything I have written down so far (quite a lot, I admit) considers a single project. But what if you often build your own websites, or if you have many sub-sites to a main site and so on? And how should you organise your workspace (directory structure in this case) accordingly?
In the case of sub-sites (for instance websites or projects running on a sub-domain which use the same ftp source but that use a different styling guide) I would advise to use the unaltered normalizer. By doing so, every project has to be modified by rules that have been defined in normalize.css but it keeps you from having duplicate (yet different! for you have edited them per project) normalize.css files spread across your ftp server. Your folder structure would then look like this
- root
-- /index.html
-- /css
--- /normalize.css
-- /project-name-1/
--- /index.html
--- /css
---- /style.css
-- /project-name-2/
--- /index.html
--- /css
---- /style.css
-- /project-name-3/
--- /index.html
--- /css
---- /style.css
This means that index.html in the root shares the same reset (normalize.css, un-edited) as all the (sub-)projects.
To summarise: in an individual project that stands completely alone I'd edit the normalize file and simply see it as a base file to get started with. It's a good guideline, but some things just don't fit a project's needs (for example the heading declaration I mentioned earlier). I myself SCSS-ified and edited normalize.css to fit my needs, and use that as a base file for all my websites. Just keep one copy of it somewhere, and when you get a new project: copy it, edit it, and use it.
1: I am aware that not everyone would agree with me on this distinction. It is based on DOM manipulation: jQuery, for instance, allows functionality, i.e. the possibility to execute functions. You cannot call jQuery which would then trigger an action or manipulation. The basic function of Modernizr, for example, is different. When called, it executes functions and checks functionality of the browser (and adds classes to the DOM).
I decided to use Normalize.css and Reset.css to write my own defaults.
I don't think it's necessary to customize Normalize besides the default font-family, font-size, line-height and some other optional things.
I created Initialize.css, a collection of best practices like normalize and made it configurable with SASS (scss) (there is a css version as well). In this case, you could use normalize and set you own default font-familty, font-size and line-height and if you need some margins to elements like paragraphs and headings. You don't start with CSS overwrites, and that's awesome! :-)
http://jeroenoomsnl.github.io/initialize-css/
Related
I've built a library that will be used by several Angular applications (multiple teams and no monorepo). This library includes a scss-theme. This theme uses two SVG-files. However, I can't get it to work. The path is always incorrect.
My theme scss:
.test::before {
content: url('/test.svg');
}
I've written a Schematic that can be used by the library consumers to store the images inside a subdirectory of the assets folder of the application (e.g. src/assets/test-path). The Schematic does work as expected.
It does work when I add the following style inside the client's scss:
#import "test-company/test-lib/theme";
.a-client-test::before {
// This is just an example and assumes that the test image is located at this path.
background-image: url('../../assets/test-path/test.svg');
}
But as soon as I remove the line above (that actually uses the image from the assets folder and is not required at all). The path won't work anymore.
I've tested the following paths inside the library: ./test.svg, ~/test.svg, /test.svg. Only the latter does work but only with additional styles like the one above (that wouldn't be used) on app side. That's something I want to avoid as maybe we provide 50 icons on the library-side and it would be tedious to add these classes only to use the assets.
Some additional information:
I've added node_modules to the predecessor options in angular.json.
All other styles are working correctly. Only the image doesn't work.
I know that I can use ccsUrl: "inline" option inside the ng-package.json. However, I think this option only works (as far as I know) on styles that are used by components. But I actually copy the theme styles over after the build process. Additionally, the number of icons that are used inline shouldn't be too big, otherwise, the bundle size will increase and is therefore not an option for me.
I also don't know what is best practice for a scenario like that. I just couldn't figure out a proper way so far. But I assume writing a Schematic that copies over files is also not the best approach. Maybe there is a better way (e.g. a way to reference assets from the library but keep in mind I have the styles inside my library and the path is, therefore, complicated to figure out for all modules).
Just to make it clear again: My library has a scss file that uses an image. That image path is clear at the built time but doesn't work when used by an app. I can copy over the images, but that only helps when those images are used by the app somewhere in the styles. Then the path /image.svg works. The image as well as the scss that makes use of it are provided by my application.
Thanks for your help!
Note: I'm open to other solutions if this is the wrong approach
I want to used https://github.com/twitter/css-flip for rtl support on
my project
The documentation is sparse and seems to make a lot of assumptions. I can successfully run the CLI against a .css file but not a scss file as I suspected.
I was thinking about adding a step that ran the css-flip on the compiled styles like so:
css-flip app/assets/stylesheets/application.css > app/assets/stylesheets/application.rtl.css
One, I'm not sure this is the best approach, and Two, if it is reasonable, how could I run the css-flip command on the assets after they've been compiled?
I'm not sure if this is the right approach, but I'd say you can use css-flip to generate your css files, and afterwards, I see 2 different solutions. (In the case you don't want to use Pete suggestion about the direction property, but I assume you may want some custom style depending of the orientation of the language.)
1 - depending on the version of your site, you change the asset being loaded.
2 - Or, I'd say you concat your two css files generated to put both behind a class (probably with the help of a preprocessor such as sass), and you put this class on your body, and change it whenever the user changes their language settings.
solution 1 creates lighter css file, but your user need to reload the page when they change language, whereas solution 2 creates bigger css file, but user won't need to reload their page when they change language.
Hope this helps.
I have a website which uses 1 css file, it is called body.css and it consists of 841 lines. Should it be sorted in different files (header.css, footer.css page1.css, etc...), is it better in just 1 file or does it not matter?
The only thing I know for sure is sorting it in more files is a lot more readable.
Also if someone answers this I'd be most grateful for a little explanation.
My opinion would be one of two things.
1) If you know that your CSS will NEVER change once you've built it, I'd build multiple CSS files in the development stage (for readability), and then manually combine them before going live (to reduce http requests)
2) If you know that you're going to change your CSS once in a while, and need to keep it readable, I would build separate files and use code (providing you're using some sort of programming language) to combine them at runtime build time (runtime minification/combination is a resource pig).
With either option I would highly recommend caching on the client side in order to further reduce http requests.
So, there are good reasons in both cases...
A solution that would allow you to get the best of both ideas would be :
To develop using several small CSS files
i.e. easier to develop
To have a build process for your application, that "combines" those files into one
That build process could also minify that big file, btw
It obviously means that your application must have some
configuration stuff that allows it to swith from "multi-files mode" to "mono-file mode".
And to use, in production, only the big file i.e. Single CSS
Result : faster loading pages
maybe this will help you..
For optimal performance it is better to have only one css file.
But for readability it would be better to have different files for different parts.
Take a look at tools like SASS, which help do that without sacrifice performance. Additionally it has features to make your files even more readable by introducing variables, function and much more.
Using more files means more requests. It will take more time to load and make unnecessary requests to the server. I'd stay with one file.
The only good reason to have other css files would be if you have third-party components, to keep them separated and be able to update them easily.
The order matters: Rules loaded later will override rules with the same name loaded before (this is valid even for rules in the same file).
What do you mean that your website uses one CSS file? Normally you'd write your style definitions in multiple files, and they are concatenated (or not) into one file. My point is, what you are working on in your development environment should stay modular, readable, it shouldn't be influenced by what you have in production.
As for the order of the CSS files, yes, it matters, as you can overwrite your previous definitions.
For optimal caching I'd recommend you to build all the vendor CSS in one file, and your CSS in another file, versioned, so that if you change something in your code, only that file has to be updated by the browser.
But these things depend on the infrastructure. As the browsers are able now to send multiple requests simultaneously, having multiple files can lead to faster page load than only one. But I'm not sure about this.
you might want to take a look at gulp to automatically optimize, and minify your CSS code.
All css in one file is OK.
But it's free : you can make as many css file as you want.
However usually this is how it is:
1 global css file for the entire page. You put the common css in here that is useful for every page on your site. You can call it app.css or style.css or mywebsite.css or any name you want.
1 specific css file for a specific page when you want to specially separate this css from the global css file. Because it will contains css only useful for a few pages. For example you have a special component made by your own or a special functionnality. Example : you have made a spcial javascript code working with some html for uploading some file and you want to have your code js/css separate.
Usually, you can also have one css page for each page, but always one global css file for the entire site.
Note : Same question is also valid for javascript
Note 2 : You can also think about using a framework to minify your javascript and css into one single css / js file at the end. At work our technical boss use wro4j which works for java but it should exists many more other frameworks as you can search on google.
I've been working with the ModX Revolution manager, and was wondering if I can turn my CSS into ModX Resources rather than files. I'd also like to utilize Templates and their variables. Is that possible? What are the drawbacks of doing so? Are there any advantages (aside from the ones I think below)?
The reason I would prefer this is that I use several CSS pages with the #import statement to object orient my CSS a little bit better. If I could do this directly in ModX, it would save me uploads and syncing.
In previous versions of ModX (Evo and Revo), you used to have to go through tricks. Now with 2.2.2pl, it is possible with very few tricks. The information to do this is sparse and inaccurate any more. Here's how you do it:
Create Your Template
Create a new Template. I named mine CSS Stylesheet. (Simple as that)
For the content, simply put [[*content]].
Create Your CSS Page
Create a new resource. Name it whatever you would like.
Add your alias. Make sure you do not add the .css at the end. ModX should do this for you.
Now, make sure your new page is published. You may also want to hide from menus.
Add your CSS code. No funny tricks... Just copy and paste it like you normally would.
Test the Stylesheet
Simply navigate directly to your new page as if it were an html document. Don't forget the .css instead of .html. If you see the CSS code, then you've succeeded.
Add Your CSS to the Templates
This one is the tricky part. You won't be able to use the <link rel=></link>.
Simply go to your <head> element. Add the following code:
<style type="text/css">
#import url("");
</style>
Test the
Inside the url("");, just place the url to your new resource.
Advantages
Aside from the saving the uploading and downloading, you can now edit your CSS using any of the ModX tools. Additionally there are a few other perks:
If you're like me, file names are useful, but often not descriptive enough. You can name them whatever you like! Its the alias that is important anyway.
Handy tool-tips based on the Description of the resource.
You may also utilize the Summary of the resource for other things. I place the important file comments in here, so that my CSS is smaller.
Template Variables! In previous versions of ModX, you couldn't have a Template for your CSS.
Chunks and Snippets, if you so desire. You have to write them as plain text, rather than HTML, but it's still useful if you are creative.
Your CSS is now shared between all of your Contexts if you like. This is due to the nature of the #import statement.
You can edit your CSS from any computer. You may even set up your front-end for the editing.
Drawbacks
There's always trade-offs, and with this technique it is no different. A lot depends on how you have things set up for your site.
Your saving and editing is based on your server performance.
Your URL requests will be based even more on your ModX performance. For some, adding these extra resources could slow things down. Often, its not enough to worry about, but its worth mentioning.
It's now managed by the database, so its subject to database security. This can be good or bad. Even it is good, it probably will require extra set up from you.
Your Templates, Snippets and Plugins can break your CSS, if programmed incorrectly. This is something you really want to be careful with.
Each CSS request is treated as a separate request by ModX. The Template Variables and plugins do not apply to the web page you are viewing. They apply to the CSS content.
Conclusion
The whole process takes about 15 minutes. And ultimately, it's even faster to revert back if it doesn't work for you (just don't delete the raw files until you are sure). The added functionality is worth it to me.
I'm considering using less in an upcoming project but have been trying to figure out the best way to work with it while in development.
Usually when developing a site I'll write my html and css then start testing it in the browser, see how it looks, refine, reload, and repeat the whole process until I'm happy with how everything looks.
A crucial part of the process is using the Inspect Element feature in the browser to identify the piece of CSS I need to change. Usually just by looking at the line number I know exactly where to go in my CSS file.
But if I use Less (or any other method of combining/compressing my CSS) it makes the line numbers useless. I know I could use Find to search for the section of code but line numbers are much faster.
This is especially true when working on a project that involves other developers or large CSS files.
I just wondered how others deal with this, or maybe there's a better process?
Minified CSS really should only be going out to the production version of your site. When you're performing tests/changes etc, this should all be done in some test or development version of your site in a secondary server area where you can have the line-numbers version of css available. The same would go for JavaScript. On the production viewable copy, you want it minified. In development, you don't.
In any event, you should always have 2 copies of your css. The first copy is the primary source copy that is your development copy. It has all of your properly formatted styles with line-breaks in it. The other is the very latest minified version of your css that went to production. This will allow you to switch between the 2 files rapidly in the event that you need to work something out, assuming your site uses some sort of templated delivery (layout pages, master pages, or whatever).
The minified version will only be useful in the final delivery. All other needs should use the master copy. It might not be a bad idea to put a configuration in server-side portion of your site that determines what style sheet to use. That way you can simply change a configuration setting and go into a "debug" mode.
I agree with Joel - that's how I handle it. A build script minifies the CSS (and JS) before each release is FTP'ed to production. I just have a switch in PHP like:
if ($config->prod()) {
// incldue the minfied css
} else {
// include all the original files
}
Personnaly, I use an ant build script to make a production version:
it "condense" multiple css files in one
then it minify them with YUI compressor
same for scripts
(page recomposition to point to the newly generated files)
this way you divide your http request for those files, and gain some bandwith from 30% to 70% i'd say. depends on gzip also.
in my case, the dev version have:
18 css weighting 178ko
reduced down to 1 css at 96ko in the production version
I personally use tools to minify and inject the CSS into the browser each time i save my Less file. So i see each change immediately. This way it's pretty clear what just happened. I don't need the referencing line numbers that much any more.
I recently started using source maps, to see the correct file and line numbers (of my less files) when inspecting CSS in the browser again. I think that is what you are looking for. I personally don't need this extra fanciness that much.