Related
I'm not sure this is possible, but id like to set all user styles back to chrome defaults for div and descendants.
I'm building a Chrome plugin that creates a popup on any web page, however due to the fact every page has a plethora of custom styles, trying to track down every inconsistency and overwrite it with my divs (and descendants) custom style, it is becoming a nightmare.
Every time I think I've covered all bases another site implements something else that needs to be overridden.
What would be the easiest approach to standardize my popup in this situation?
One approach I can think of is to (bite the bullet) and get a hold of the the default Chrome CSS styles and implement them into a series of catch all descendant selectors, however surely there is a better way.
If you want to be absolutely sure that the styling of your elements is not affected by the web-page's CSS, there are 2 possible solutions:
Use an iframe to implement your popup. (This solution is "safe" and simple enough, but based on the kind of interaction between the popup and the web-page it might become cumbersome.)
Utilize the Shadow DOM. (This is probably the "proper" solution, but the implementation might be a little more complicated.)
Some resources regarding the 2nd solution:
An introductory tutorial.
An actual example of incorporating the "Shadow DOM" concept into a Chrome extension:
RobW's Display Anchors extension
There is a third option worth discussing and rejecting, which is to reset all the style properties of the div and its descendents to its default value. Pseudo-code:
#my-div, #my-div * {
#for-every-css-property {
%propertyName: initial !important;
}
}
This answer shows an attempt at such a solution. It uses specific values instead of initial which will work in older browsers without the initial keyword, but will not correctly reset elements which have a different default from the base (e.g. user566245 mentions that textarea elements should have a border).
Issues:
Unfortunately initial is not actually the browser's default value.
If we don't use !important above then there is a risk that the page might have provided a rule with a more specific elector which overrides our own. For example if the page specified properties for table > tr > td then this would be applied over our rule because that selector is more specific than #my-div *.
Since we do use !important, any custom styling we want to do after the reset must also use !important on every property.
If the page happens to inject any additional CSS styles after ours that uses !important then these can override our reset.
It is rather inefficient. We are asking the browser to apply a huge bunch of CSS rules to every element under our div.
Vendor-specific properties should also be reset. (E.g. -webkit-animation-name.)
If new CSS properties come into existence in future, you will need to update your list.
Whilst this solution can be applied to current browsers, it is rather horrible, so roll on Shadow DOM! I would recommend the <iframe> solution in the meantime.
I don't know if anyone has tried this, but a more efficient solution might be to use Javascript to detect what site-defined CSS properties could be problematic, and reset only those.
So, this is a question that's been nagging at me for a long time. I've been digging much more into CSS these days. I'm trying to stay away from jQuery for this project as it's in Drupal and I'm trying to stay away from custom code.
So, we have a class the system applies to BODY called "not-logged-in" when the user isn't logged in. Now this should work well for us (as I understand CSS), as we're only allowing admins to "log in". We are having collisions when we have someone editing a node -- all our custom classes are loaded in both cases and some of the editing controls are looking funky because of it.
So the BODY style is something like this:
<body class="html not-front not-logged-in no-sidebars page-node page-node- page-node-1 node-type-page footer-columns" >
... [much body content here--other divs, other classes, elements with IDs] ...
<div class='mycustomclass'>Should be bigger if logged in</div>
</body>
So, when I try to add a CSS selector and style, like this:
.not-logged-in .mycustomclass {
font-size: 20px;
}
It seems to ignore .mycustomclass. I've run into this before and chalked it up to my poor CSS-fu. And there was always jQuery, so I really didn't have to care. I'd really appreciate it if someone could clear this long-time mystery up for me.
Your syntax is fine, no problems there.
I imagine one of two problems:
The class is not actually being loaded, either on the body, or on your mycustomclass element. Check both in the rendered source (i.e. in the browser), not just your own code. As it's Drupal, it could be caching so your changes are not being loaded. Clear the Drupal cache.
Specificity. Perhaps there is another class on the element, or perhaps there's a global rule. Either way, something could be overriding your CSS on that element.
To solve both, use Firebug and the Web Developer Toolbar in Firefox. Both are essential for doing CSS.
Be sure that Drupal is adding the css script tags in the <head> of your HTML. You should have them follow after your stylesheet references. That's it, the drupal css (the one that is adding the not-logged-in class to the <body>) must execute before your css.
I built an extension which, whenever user visits some specific sites, I inject my script on the top of there web pages. I used
document.body.insertBefore(wrapperDiv, document.body.firstChild)
to do so.
Now problem: CSS of injected script gets messed up for each and every site(differ from one site to another).
How should I maintain single css structure for all sites?
You should be able to solve this problem by using unique IDs for your html tags with CSS.
That is, if your DIV CSS properties are interfering with their DIV CSS add a #uniqueNameHere ID to your DIV and set the CSS for the #ID.
This page on the use of the !important keyword may be useful too.
http://css-tricks.com/9462-when-using-important-is-the-right-choice/
Use unique selectors for your elements (be it classes with specific prefix or similarly constructed IDs), but you probably try to include CSS along with your script, which may not be a good idea.
In some cases the inline styling is the best idea - it will overwrite all the styles for your elements and will make sure the outlook of these elements is consistent across different pages.
So, I would say, go with inline styling.
For documentation on how the styles are overwritten in CSS 2.1, please see the following page: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#specificity
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.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
We have a large ASP.Net website that has a single css stylesheet which is getting out of control.
I am thinking of using the following strategy (taken from http://www.techrepublic.com/article/developing-a-css-strategy/5437796/) which seems logical to me...
you might have one CSS file devoted to sitewide styles and separate CSS files for identifiable subsets of site pages (such as pages for a specific department or pages with a different layout style). For styles that are unique to a specific page, use a separate CSS file for each page (if there are too many styles to fit comfortably in the document header). You link or import the appropriate CSS files for each page, so that you load all the styles needed to display that page, but very few unnecessary styles that only appear on other pages.
Is this a good way to proceed? What are the alternatives?
I think the best option is to divide css in:
-layout.css
-content.css
Then if you need other more specific you can add more like an css for the ads: ads.css, or one css for a specific section.
I would also add ie.css for IE css hacks.
I would not speak about creating one css for only one page: the problem you can have if you use too many css, is that your page will have to do more requests to the server and this will slow your page.
This is why i recommend you to implement an HttpHandler which will create a cache copy in only one file of the css you need at the moment. Look here:
http://blog.madskristensen.dk/post/Combine-multiple-stylesheets-at-runtime.aspx
There are three principle methods used for breaking up stylesheets: property-based, structure-based, and hybrid. Which method you choose should most be based on workflow and personal preference.
Property-Based
The most basic, representative form of a property-based breakup would be to use two stylesheets: structure.css and style.css. The structure.css file would contain rules that only used properties like height, width, margin, padding, float, position, etc. This would effectively contain the "building blocks" necessary to arrange the elements of the page the way you want. The style.css file would contain rules with properties like background, font, color, text-decoration, etc. This effectively acts as a skin for the structure created in the other stylesheet.
Additional separation might include using a typography.css file, where you'd place all of your font properties. Or a colors.css file, where you'd place all of your color and background properties. Try not to go overboard because this method quickly becomes more trouble than it's worth.
Structure-Based
The structure-based method of breaking up stylesheets revolves around segregating rules based on what elements to which they apply. For example, you might see a masthead.css file for everything in the header, a body.css file for everything in the content area of the page, a sidebar.css file for everything in the sidebar, and a footer.css file for everything at the bottom of the page.
This method really helps when you have a site with lots of distinct sections on each page. It also helps minimize the number of rules found in each stylesheet. Unlike the property-based method, which tends to have a rule in each stylesheet for each element on the page, with this method you only have one rule in one stylesheet for any given element.
Hybrid
As you might expect, the hybrid method combines the best of both methods and it's my preferred choice. Here you create a structure.css file, just like in the property-based method, using only those properties that you need to create the basic layout. Then you create additional stylesheets like masthead.css, which skins the header; body.css, which skins the content; etc.
Other Considerations
One problem that plagues each of these methods is that by creating multiple stylesheets, you require that the client's browser fetches many files. This can have a negative effect on the user experience because most browsers will only make two concurrent requests to the same server. If you have seven stylesheets, that means adding potentially hundreds of milliseconds on the initial page load (this effect is lessened once the stylesheets have been cached, but you want to make a good first impression on those new visitors). It's for this reason that the CSS sprites technique was created. Breaking up your stylesheets may wipe out any gains made by using sprites.
The way around this is to compress your broken-up stylesheets back into one stylesheet when the user makes a page request.
To get the best of both worlds, consider using a CSS meta-language like Sass. This allows a CSS author to break one stylesheet into many while still only presenting one stylesheet to the browser. This adds a step to the CSS authoring workflow (though it could potentially be scripted to compile the Sass into CSS any time a Sass file is updated), but it can be worthwhile, especially when considering some of Sass' many other benefits.
What you can do is have lots of easy to manage, separate files for development, then smoosh them all together into one file and minify it on your live site.
This is a little more work to set up, but gives you the best of both worlds - easy to manage site + fast page loads.
Edit: Yahoo's YUI compressor seems to be the best minifier around. It can compress both CSS and Javascript.
My solution, amidst plenty:
base.css / reset.css: your foundation {base layout, type, color} -- 100% reusability
helper.css: basic layout rules for modules as well as 'utility classes' {grid variations, forms, tables, etc} -- 90+% reusability
module.css: complex layout rules for modules {semantic modules like .post or .comment} - 75% reusability
layout.css: template-based rules {#hd, #bd, #ft, #homePage, etc.}- almost no reusability
color.css: all color rules, combined - 50% reusability
type.css: all type rules, combined - 75% reusability (text styling has less variations)
this separation also allows mobile and print versions for the layout sheets, all controlled by #import via the stylesheet I link to the html.
I am using this for a medium-sized site. For extra organization, I keep each sheet sectioned basically the same {wrapper, general, unique, etc}. I also tag my selectors and properties, as well as indent them in order of dependency inside the same selector group, so I know what rules I am referencing or extending. This framework allows nearly infinite expansion while keeping things organized, understandable, and reusable. I've had to refactor a 7000+ line master.css file a month ago, so this is a new system I am trying out. I've found that 100% content-semantic CSS isn't as scalable and easy to understand as a semantic/layout hybrid, since that's what CSS is used for anyway.
1.25-yr-later-edit: Another method which might be more relevant is to just use a good CSS text editor. I'm positive VS is crap for working with CSS, unless you happen upon some extensions. If you're on windows, give E Text Editor a shot, b/c it's a TextMate Windows port and has bundles designed for CSS and markup that give you much better syntax highlighting and autocompletion. What you then can do is organize, even a 8000-line stylesheet, into collapsible folds:
/** Start Module 1 */
[css]
/* End Module 1 **/
And use the symbol list to display for you a quick TOC on the fly with a query like Start or Module 1 It also indexes lines with /** these types of comments **/ (great for tagging areas) and all CSS selector chains. You should have no trouble working with single big files with E. Besides, unless you're progressively enhancing your CSS it's all going to get minified anyway. I would also make sure to indent your CSS to somewhat mimic the structure of DOM section it is referring to.
.container {}
.container .inner {}
.container .head {}
.container .inner.alt {}
Otherwise, I agree with the '1 Base CSS and 1 Page/Section CSS` method, though it entirely depends on your business requirements.
I would check out YUI CSS. Maybe not the answer you were looking for, but YUI CSS removes much of the hassle with different browsers etc...
Work out some simple rules that work for you (or your company).
Divide your CSS into separate files, such as:
layout.css
content.css
menu.css
typography.css
Decide what declarations will go in each file, for example, ensure:
font-weight, text-decoration, font-family
and
h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, a, p, li
All reside in the typography CSS file. Decide what to do for edge cases, such as border properties on headers, padding and margins on text elemants (layout or typography).
If your sets of declarations are getting unwieldy, some people like to organise them alphabetically.
Indent your css, for example:
#logo h1 {text-indent: -9999px}
#logo h1 a {display: block; width: 200px; height: 98px; backround...}
Comment your CSS, including references to other files if other rule for that specific selector reside there.
If you do divide you CSS into separate files, consider consolidating and compressing them into one file as part of your build & deployment process.
Make sure every developer is well aware of your standard for CSS.
Also, somewhat relevant, I've just been made aware of a Firefox plugin for finding unnecessary selectors. It's called Dust-Me Selectors.
netadictos makes some good points and I would concur. It's easy to seek reasons for more Css but the benefits of keeping them lean are far greater in the longer term.
In addition, have you looked at using themes and skin files within asp.net? The combination of .css and .skin can dramatically reduce the overall size of your Css, which is marginally good for performance but very good for easier administration.
Some exceptions could be contained within the one css file but if things are radically different within the one then you may consider a separate css or even a separate site if they are that different. Obviously you might load different versions of the themes depending on which user it is. This is where you could have an explosion of Css files. That is, say you had a css for each page and then you wanted to have different for different clients on your site, then you'd be growing exponentially. This of course assumes you have this challenge.
I wonder the same thing with regards to JavaScript files. If your site is highly dependent on Ajax to the point where almost every page requires some kind of custom Javascript then were do you stick it all?
Best practices oftern spout not having javascript in the page but as external files (as with css). But if you have a .js file per page then things will slowly get out of hand.
I'm not sure about Windows equivalents, but on the Mac you can get CSSEdit, which allows you to add folders to CSS files and manage them like that. There's a good explanation of it in this article.
Global css files have caused me headaches before. CSS usually isn't namespaced, so if two different modules create a div with a class of "box", then the intent of one overwrites the other. Also, styles on the [a] tag, [p] tag and other basic tags (ie. styles not based on classes or id's) will wreck havoc on 3rd party controls as your global style sheet cascades onto an html component that was designed assuming no other css on the page. Inappropriate usage of text centering to center elements can lead to hard to debug global centering. So I favor multiple css files. I've seen css managers (http modules that merge css together at request time), but decided the extra http requests is well worth limiting the scope of the damage ill considered css can do to my application.
We use Ruby on Rails so we have a clear controller/action pair, we use this to reference both CSS classes and Javascript views.
Specifically, grab the name of the controller+action name and embed this as a ID in the view, put it on the body tag or your main content div.
<body id="users_list_body">
Where "users" is the name of the controller, "list" is the action. Then in your CSS you have rules likes
#users_list_body
So you can scope all of your specific CSS to that view. Of course, you also have more general CSS to handle overall styling. But having this ID defined more easily allows you to create specific CSS for individual pages (since a controller/action maps to a specific page).
You end up having rules like this
#users_list_body table
#users_list_body table thead
Do the same for Javascript. So in the footer of every page you take your same controller/action name pair and embed it in a function call
//javascript
if(V.views.users_list) { V.views.user_list(); }
Then in your external Javascript you have something like
V = {};
V.views = {};
V.views.user_list = function() {
//any code you want to run for the Users controller / List action..
//jQuery or something
$('#save_button').click({ ... });
}
with all of your Javascript code scoped to a specific function, it ends up being all encapsulated. You can then combine all of your Javascript files into one, compress it and then serve it up as one file and none of your logic will conflict. One page's JS will not conflict with any other page's JS because each page is scoped by its method name.
Whatever your choice is, avoid using the #import directive.
Makes the browser load stylesheets sequentially, hence slowing down loading and rendering for your page.
Here is what I do: I keep my stylesheets separate, somewhat along the lines of what others have suggested. However, I have a script that concatenates them together, minifies them, adds the headers, and then gzips them. The resulting file is then used as the stylesheet and if it goes beyond the expiration date, it automatically recompiles. I do this on a sitewide basis for all the common files and then also on a page specific basis for CSS that will only appear on that page. At the most, I will only ever have 2 CSS files called per page and they will be compressed, which minimizes download time and size and the number of page requests, but I will still have the benefit of separating them in whatever way makes sense to me. The same strategy can also be used for JavaScript.