I'm rather new to this so its mostly (copy and paste) with a little YouTube and reading materials here and there.
Why have both? Please simplify you answer, don't go so technical.
<style type="text/css"> is when you want to have style rules embedded within the page.
<link rel="stylesheet" href="path/to/style.css" /> is when you have a separate stylesheet file that you want to reference in the current page - doing this means that clients don't have to download the CSS every time, which makes page-loads faster.
CSS has the #import directive, if you use <style>#import style.css;</style> then it's roughly equivalent to <link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css" /> (but with some minor differences: see Difference between #import and link in CSS ).
Method 1 (using <style type="text/css">)
Is simple way to declare CSS. But it should be used for small codes. When you want to overwrite an attribute of the main stylesheet.
Method 2 (using <link rel="stylesheet" href="path/to/style.css" />)
The first advantage of this method is that, we have a style in an external file. And that means that we can use it repeatedly. But this is not the end of the advantages. You can tell your browser to save the file in the cache. Which reduces page load time.
What is better?
In my opinion Method 2.
Using <style type="text/css"> is for CSS code in your HTML file and <link...> is for including an external CSS file.
The first case <style type="text/css"> is for including css definitions in your html file. The 2nd case puts the css definintions in style.css (or whatever file is the href). The 2nd case makes it easy to use the same css across multiple html files.
The first is used to insert css code directly in your html files, while the second is calling an external css file.
Related
Is there any standard place and way to define a css file and reference it in some of the pages of a subsite?
The following code works, but having an absolute path and an arbitrary location doesn't seems to be a good solution (specially when we are dealing with hundreds of topics.
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="PATH_TO_FILE/mystyle.css">
Attaching your CSS file at any page and referencing it by appending /pub/%WEB%/Webhome/ to the path works. Maybe not a standard solution, but still works.
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/pub/%WEB%/Webhome/mystyle.css">
I've tried this exact code on my other computer and once run it is shown differently. Could you correctly show me how I should insert the references? Also how could I override the style of the default bootstrap?
I think that's all the info you need, but if you need anything else just ask.
I assume that you html file is inside wwwroot folder, so:
<title>Bootstrap 101 Template</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="lib/bootstrap/dist/css/bootstrap.css">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="lib/bootstrap/dist/css/bootstrap.min.css">
<script src="lib/bootstrap/dist/js/bootstrap.min.js"></script>
<style>
...
</style>
</head>
Where you have:
<link href="~/lib/bootstrap/dist/css/bootstrap.css" rel="stylesheet">
Remove the ~.
I believe that the ~ is a Windows only thing used for finding the path. If it's your mac where Bootstrap is not working, then I'm 98% sure that was the issue. ~ isn't used in the mac environment for paths like it is on Windows.
You will also need to do that for your other paths being found this way.
Going in and changing the bootstrap CSS can get a little complicated so I usually create a new CSS file with my edits. Since CSS is cascading stylesheets, I make sure that my CSS file is the last stylesheet in the head section so it overrides the stylesheets above it.
The location of your CSS file in reference to your HTML file will determine what the file path looks like in your reference. If your HTML file is in the root directory, the reference/paths mentioned in the other answers should work.
As stated above:
<link href="~/lib/bootstrap/dist/css/bootstrap.css" rel="stylesheet">
Remove ~.
If you want to overwrite CSS place the default.css or your own css after the one you want to overwrite for example:
<!-- Bootstrap and Custom CSS Style Sheets -->
<link rel="stylesheet" href="css/bootstrap.min.css">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="css/default.css">
Suppose if I have a website http://somethingsomething.com
And I have 3 css file
common.css
homepage.css
inner-pages.css
homepage.css is required for homepage and common.css is for whole site but inner-pages.css is for other pages only and it's big file. Is it possible to load inner-pages.css after homepage data download. In the same way like we use async attribute for script tag. As far as I know async attribute is only for JS not CSS
my one friend suggested to use requirejs for this http://requirejs.org/docs/faq-advanced.html#css but I don't want to use javascript to load css and even I would think upon JS way i would not use require.js just for this. So if it is not possible with CSS only. what would be the simple JS way to do this?
Async CSS with media="bogus" and a <link> at the foot
Say we've got our HTML structured like this:
<head>
<!-- unimportant nonsense -->
<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css" media="bogus">
</head>
<body>
<!-- other unimportant nonsense, such as content -->
<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css">
</body>
More at http://codepen.io/Tigt/post/async-css-without-javascript
You can place an iframe in your page pointing to some dummy page that serves the CSS, that should serve the CSS file async.
<iframe src="loadcss.html"></iframe>
Do note it seems pretty trivial, this causes a minimum of 2 css file transfers per page and 3 css file transfers per child page (if it isn't cached). If you were to minify the css you would only have 1 transfer regardless.
try
$.ajax({
url:'/css.css',
type:'get',
success:function(css){
$('html').append('<style>'+css+'</style>');
}
});
or
function getCss(url){
$('<link>',{rel:'stylesheet',type:'text/css','href':url}).appendTo('head');
}
getCss('/css.css');
ok sorry I didn't see you don't want to use javascript
how about using css #import:
<style>
#import url('/style1.css');
#import url('/style2.css');
</style>
Include your CSS in the <body> instead of <head> ... "it seems this trick causes Chrome & Firefox to start the body earlier, and they simply don't block for body stylesheets." and add a condition for IE:
head
<head>
<!--[if IE]>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css"> <!-- blocking, but what else can ya do? -->
<![endif]-->
</head>
body
<body>
<!--[if !IE]> -->
<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css" lazyload>
<!-- <![endif]-->
</body>
by Taylor Hunt #codepen.io
As suggested Require is not necessary for loading CSS assets. If you want to get your larger payloads asynchronously without relying on JavaScript you should be looking at leveraging HTTP/2 Server Push to deliver your non-critical style assets. And here's a performance technique you may find useful for delivering critical CSS payloads for browsers which works well even today.
Finally, if you are optimizing your pages for performance and don't want to pull in heavy or complicated tools like Require I've an alternative minimal asset loader you may use if you like.
When loading two CSS files via an include I am only seeing one of them being used. The other isn't being included and I don't know why.
I have a standard header file which is included on all of the site's pages.
Example below:
<html>
<head>
<link href="css/jquery-ui.css" type="text/css" />
<link href="css/main.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
</head>
This is of course a cut down version of the header for simplification. As you can see both CSS files are within the css directory. but only the main CSS file is being recognised.
Either one of the CSS files cannot be loaded (probably because of a typo or a server misconfiguration). You can detect that by checking that all resources are properly loaded in the developer tools of your browser.
The other cause may be that you're implicitly expecting your own stylesheets to take precedence over the default jQuery UI ones. If that's the case, move your own stylesheets under the jQuery UI one, or make your rules more specific than the default ones.
This is a simple demo that shows that your example works.
Solution:
In your live example, you're missing rel=stylesheet for the jQuery UI stylesheet:
<link href="css/jquery-ui-1.8.13.custom.css" type="text/css"/>
should be
<link href="css/jquery-ui-1.8.13.custom.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" />
You are missing the rel attribute in the first link tag, and most likely this is the reason it's not being parsed as CSS.
Looks like you forgot to close you link tags, just add a forward slash '/' before the closing of both tags.
You're certain the second file is linked correctly? Check Firebug's NET panel, for instance, to double-check that it's loading and not returning a 404 error or somesuch.
You wouldn't be the first developer to be brought down by an unintentional typo!
i came across two type of using external style sheet in one way
<link href="CSS/div1.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
<link href="CSS/div2.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
<link href="CSS/div3.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
importing all the style sheet like this
and the other one is using one stylesheet and importing other stylesheet within it
<link href="CSS/div1.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> and inside this
#import url('../CSS/div2.css');
#import url('../CSS/div3.css');
.crazy
{
display:block;
background-color:Black;
color:White;
}
i read somewhere that the second approach is better so i built a demo and checked that one in firebug in the first case it is taking 16ms and also downloaded less byte of data but in the second approach it takes 109ms and downloaded more bytes of data so iam confused which approach is better.
the first one is the suggested one because it's fasters for the browser to render them More on Steve's site
Go with the first! Your test results are pretty clear!
Historically, #import has been used because it wasn't support by older versions of IE and Netscape, making it easy to hide more advanced CSS from those browsers. Nowadays that isn't so much of an issue, and other techniques are recommended when you need to target specific browsers with CSS.
As for your tests, whilst there are technical reasons why the second approach would be 'slower', I'd argue a simple look at Firebug can hardly be used as empirical evidence.
I always go for the first as W3C shows
http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_howto.asp