Related
Here is a demo SVG file. Please use Firefox for viewing because currently it seems to be the only properly showing browser.
The task is to construct a pure SVG document (e.g. not html-embedded) that will be able to show tooltips using only CSS features (no JS and also no :before/:after pseudo-elements). I managed to achieve this by using the HTML foreignObject element.
However, I can not find if it is possible to position such elements in relation (e.g. 10px to the left and top from it) to other in-document SVG objects without using JavaScript for it and without embedding the SVG file itself into some other document format (e.g. HTML).
In the final version of the file there will be 20-30+ tooltips, so it is desirable to avoid manual positioning. I was hoping there would be something for "attaching" them to other objects (withthe use of their IDs) or at least to their parent objects, but my search results only return documentation and questions regarding JS or HTML implementations.
add. notes:
1) CSS-only SVG file is required because the file is intended to be used on wiki sites, which prohibid SVGs that have javascript in them.
2) If I understand correctly, displaying HTML formatting in HTML foreignObject element is not a current SVG standard requirement for SVG user agents (i.a. web-browsers). However, Firefox seems to properly display them, and I’d rather use that (even not fully supported) opportunity. If I am missing some easier ways of achieving the same thing — please do tell about them.
3) SVG code backup: pastebin.
Unfortunately, you can't achieve this effect using just CSS because positions in SVG are attributes, not styles.
I'm wondering if I can create multiple "brushes" in a single SVG file and use them thoughout my CSS.
Right now I have a single SVG file that has a gradient stored in the "defs" and a single rectangle that draws it. Then I use this SVG file as a background image in my CSS. It works well but I'd rather not have a million separate SVG files. I'd like to combine like "brushes" together in a single SVG file something like CSS sprites or XAML is capable of.
Is there a way to do this? If so what's the syntax to specify for the CSS background image which SVG element from the svg file to use?
Thanks for any help.
In theory yes, that should be possible. It's not yet fully defined in a w3c spec though and the implementations do differ at this stage.
Note that svg itself allows a special fragment syntax, so in theory you should be able to link to different views of the same svg file. That could be used to do CSS/SVG sprites.
Linking directly to the id of a nested svg fragment (or to any other element inside the svg) is something that would need to be further specified.
Assuming that linking with fragments from a CSS background property works, then a possibility if you use XHTML (serving the resulting file as application/xhtml+xml) is to just include the svg resources inline in the main document, eliminating the need for many separate files. This can be done as a pre-publishing buildstep if you wish to keep the svgs separate for editing. Another possibility is to use data uris.
I'm also seeking for the same, and here are the pointers I could find:
17.3 Linking into SVG content: IRI fragments and SVG views (w3.org)
SVG Stacks (simurai.com)
Can I use SVG fragment identifiers? (caniuse.com)
Better SVG Sprites With Fragment Identifiers (broken-links.com)
According to caniuse.com, there is an issue with browser support, but that does not prevent you to try and observe future browser evolution (in the hope a future day they will all support this obvious feature).
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.
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.
What should be written first while making CSS layouts XHTML code or CSS code?
Write Whole HTML first then write
CSS according to HTML
Write HTML for an design element and
CSS simultaneously
Write whole CSS first then write
HTML according to HTML
I read on this article's point # 7 "Create Your HTML First" is this advice best to follow?
Edit:
and in this tutorial author also write HTML First then write css using Edit CSS option of web developer toolbar i think this is best way.
In practice, you generally wind up needing to intermingle the two. Start out with HTML to rough out the basic areas of your design, then work in CSS around that rough idea. Typically you'll find yourself needing to add some more markup to allow for additional flexibility (perhaps you need a couple of nested containers to properly align something, et cetera).
I used to ponder about this long ago, when designing websites.
My conclusion was, and I believe it still stands today, that even though XHTML and CSS are meant to be isolated from each other as content and presentation respectively, the reality of the matter still makes the look of the website pretty much depend on the document structure - i.e. markup, XHTML - and thus CSS alone will not give you the magic wand to make your website change its look completely based on a stylesheet. I wish it were so however - certainly, that is the main purpose of CSS. And certainly, that would be the beauty of it - since each is completely isolated from the other, website developers can in peace of mind program the structure of the website documents, almost while the CSS authors can work in parallel and write the stylesheets. Then both are combined, and with the knowledge that the markup does not need to be changed ever again. That is the theory anyway.
In practice this often fails to work - because a document has a top-to-bottom left-to-right (usually) bound semantics, it becomes difficult to for instance, make an element appearing at the bottom of the document structure, appear at the top of the browser page to the user. The limitations work against the theory.
Because of the above implications, and some other real-world limitations of the CSS and markup technologies, I have decided to simply consider markup as something in between the content and the style. I.e. some of the markup will unfortunately dictate style, no matter stylesheet - the sequence of elements being one (see above), pagination limitations, etc - and so, while most of the structure may be isolated from its appearance, some of this appearance will be dictated by it. For this reason, if we don't regard client side scripting (which may aid styling by re-arranging elements of a document) - one way to do it is use XML as content, XHTML as content-style hybrid layer, and CSS to finally dictate the appearance.
Where does XML come into this? Well, you transform (either in browser or server-side) it with XSLT into a XHTML document, which you consider as relevant in the styling process. I.e. if you have an artist list of 1000 entries, and you want to customize how the page looks like, you use the following content XML:
<artists>
<artist name="Moby" />
<artist name="Cocorosie" />
<!-- and so on -->
</artists>
This is considered as an unchanging content, no matter the final style - part of the point of separating content from presentation, something you could not have done fully with XHTML because CSS cannot do certain things. With XSLT however, you can further transform the above into a desired markup ( you can then apply CSS to):
<xsl:transform>
<!-- XSLT is beyond the scope of this... -->
</xsl:transform>
will transform the XML into something like:
<h1>Artists</h1>
<h2>Page 1 of 10</h1>
<ul>
<li><a>Moby</a></li>
<!-- Only 100 artists per page -->
</ul>
And then you style it.
Bottomline is, you get to control each point of the transformation of your raw database content into final end-user application.
Much of what XSLT does with XML, can be instead done with JavaScript on XHTML, but I consider client-side scripting an addition, not replacement to things like XSLT. Then again, Firefox and most other modern browsers can do XSLT client-side, which blurs the distinction between scripting and document serving.
I think it's a mistake to do one before the other. Programming is an iterative process. Write them both until you have something small that works, then do it again. Build on it. Iterate.
If you write just HTML without writing any CSS, you'll find out later that you'll have a bunch of technical debt that needs to be paid off.
It really depends how big is your site... If it's a small website the order doesn't matter. If it's a big website i generally design basic structure in HTML then basic CSS and then move to details in HTML and then CSS.
Few advices.
re-use already made CSS and HTML.
ie. if you already have template
with basic HTML wrappers save it
for the next project or page or
if you set all images to
border:none in your CSS you can
easily save some CSS file with
basic settings
see an object in your head before
designing it
check in 5 major browsers (ie6 ie7
ie8 chrome and firefox)
I usually go with the second option:
Write HTML for an design element and
CSS simultaneously
This really helps, for example, when I am writing html, i write the CSS along the way too which helps me quickly spot any possible layout or cross-browser compatibility issues. If i wrote whole html first and then css, then things become little complicated and you have hard time correcting/styling the entire html which you already created.
As for the link you provided, i would simply say author has his own view and personal way of working. In other words, this also depends which way you are most comfortable with or rather fast.
You can't write CSS before writing the HTML (except for the body tag!), or you'll be working like a blind.
For me, I make a mock-up of the website layout, write down the whole HTML and then write CSS that just makes the layout.
I use Expression design to slice images and add/modify HTML/CSS until I get the final template.
I don't like the idea of going back and forth with code. If I'm at #header in html, it seems pretty logical to me to stylize the header right now. Is good for my mental sanity :D
So I go with the second option: I wrote code simultaneously.
You have to write HTML before CSS.
Your question is like, Is it better to design a car Interior, before having a car ?
Is it possible ? or Is it a intelligent work ?
Given that most designs are not simple, and following basic semantical rules, you will always need to adjust the html code when trying to get the layout looking as you have in mind. So doing both simultaneously is probably the most pratical way, although the other two options work as well; You just need to made adjustments then later.
Sorry , I am not choosing anyone of these..
In first you can't able to write the whole css for your page. although it's better you should write the common css classes and page layouts in the first.ie, after creating the page layout , you just design the page using table or div tags. after , while adding controls to the pages , you just identify the common styles u are using. These styles you can use like css classes. or seperate id. I am following this method for my designing.
i think its better.
By creating the HTML first, you can guarantee what the page will look like on the most basic browsers - it'll be legible on an old phone, everything's in logical order, and you aren't forcing screen readers to recite your site navigation first thing on every single page. That's design #1.
Design #2 is the CSS part, where you actually make things look visibly decent without limiting your user base.
Not that they can't be done simultaneously, mind. Just that's most likely what the author of that article was trying to get at.
See also: Progressive Enhancement.
I personally write much of the CSS first, then HTML, then tweak the two together - one page at a time (apart from common elements). At first it sounds counter-intuitive, but when you think of the CSS as not only styles but as elements that either have a style or have a style of nothing, it's actually very fast and produces lean code.
Once I've got some core styles in place, the HTML is just a question of...
<wrapper>
<div header>
<div this>
<div that>
<form>
<div footer>
... and it all slots roughly into the styles and layout that I've already defined. For elements that needed no styling, I just mentally skipped over when writing the CSS.
My 3 cents:
What's the goal of the webpage? Most of the time that goal is strongly related to it's content.
Thus, the first thing is content. HTML gives content gets it's semantics. CSS gives the semantics a context.
So the order:
content
html
css
But of course, it's an iterative process.
I write them at the same time, iteratively, in modules.
I will build out the general template (or base template) in html/css, do a full cross-browser test, then move on to the additional templates.
This fits in well with .net where I'm using master pages and nested master pages.
I may change this behaviour once IE6 is off the books, as you often have to completely restructure your markup to accommodate it.
I'd go with the second option. HTML in todays web dev is seen as a template to hold content. CSS should be used to format the layout and content within the web page.
Because of this, HTML and CSS should be used parallel in creating web-pages and individual elements.