TL;DR Is it a bad practice to change default display property in my CSS?
Issue
Recently, in our project we had to position 2 header tags so they would look like one. They had the same font size and similar styling so the only issue was how to place one next to another. We had 2 different ideas on that and it le do a discussion on whether or not is a good practice to change default display property
So, our very basic code
<div class="container">
<h1>Header:</h1>
<h2>my header</h2>
</div>
The outcome we would like to have:
Header: my header
Note:
The code needs to consists of 2 different headings because on mobile version we want to display them in in separate lines (so leaving default display: block).
Approach #1: Use display: inline
This is pretty stright forward. Block elements became inline so they are positioned in the same line. The disadvantage of this approach is that default display properties of both h1 and h2 were changed.
Approach #2: Use float
H1 can be positioned on the left using float: left property. This approach leaves the default display property intact, but will requires some hacks if the .container is not long enough to fit both headers in single line.
The question
It all leads to a simple question: Is it a bad practice to change the default display property of HTML elements? Is it breaking the standard and should be avoided if possible? Or is it our bread and butter and it does not really matter, as long as code is semantically correct (so headers are placed in h1, articles are placed in article etc...)
Answering your main question:
tl;dr is it a bad practice to change default display property in my CSS?
NO
WHY?
A: Because it is all about semantics
Elements, attributes, and attribute values in HTML are defined (by
this specification) to have certain meanings (semantics). For example,
the ol element represents an ordered list, and the lang attribute
represents the language of the content.
These definitions allow HTML processors, such as Web browsers or
search engines, to present and use documents and applications in a
wide variety of contexts that the author might not have considered.
So, in your case if you really need to have 2 headings semantically then you can change their styles, including the display property.
However If you don't need to have 2 headings semantically, but only for purely cosmetics/design (responsive code), then you are doing it incorrectly.
Look at this example:
<h1>Welcome to my page</h1>
<p>I like cars and lorries and have a big Jeep!</p>
<h2>Where I live</h2>
<p>I live in a small hut on a mountain!</p>
Because HTML conveys meaning, rather than presentation, the same page
can also be used by a small browser on a mobile phone, without any
change to the page. Instead of headings being in large letters as on
the desktop, for example, the browser on the mobile phone might use
the same size text for the whole the page, but with the headings in
bold.
This example has focused on headings, but the same principle applies
to all of the semantics in HTML.
** Emphasis in the quote above is mine **
P.S - Remember that headings h1–h6 must not be used to markup subheadings (or subtitles), unless they are supposed to be the heading for a new section or subsection.
With all this above in mind, here is a few (good) approaches:
If you're doing the two headings purely for design then:
add a span inside of the h1, using a media query either using mobile first approach (min-width) or the non-mobile approach (max-width).
PROs - easily manageable through CSS, changing only properties.
CONs - adding extra HTML markup, using media queries as well.
h1 {
/* demo only */
background: red;
margin:0
}
#media (max-width: 640px) {
span {
display: block
}
}
<div class="container">
<h1>Header:<span> my header</span></h1>
</div>
If you need to use the two headings semantically then:
use flexbox layout.
PROs - no need to add extra HTML markup or the use of media queries, being the most flexible currently in CSS (basically the cons from option above mentioned).
CONs - IE10 and below has partial or none support, Can I use flexbox ? (fallback for IE10 and below would be CSS TABLES)
.container {
display: flex;
flex-wrap: wrap;
align-items: center;
/*demo only*/
background: red;
}
h1,
h2 {
/*demo only*/
margin: 0;
}
h2 {
/*640px will be flex-basis value - can be changed as prefered */
flex: 0 640px;
}
<div class="container">
<h1>Header:</h1>
<h2>my header</h2>
</div>
Sources:
W3C specs - 3.2.1 Semantics
W3C specs - 4.12.1 Subheadings, subtitles, alternative titles and taglines
tl;dr is it a bad practice to change default display property in my CSS?
No. As expressed by W3C themselves; HTML conveys meaning, not presentation.
As an HTML author, it's your job to structure a page so that every section of the page carries the intended semantics as described by the documentation, so that software (browsers, screen readers, robots...) can correctly interpret your content.
As a CSS author, it's your job to alter the default styling of correct markup to present it the way you want to. This includes changing the default display properties just as much as changing the default color.
Any software can, however, decide that certain usage of CSS properties changes the way they interpret your page. For instance, a search engine could decide that text that has the same color as their parent's background should carry no weight for their ranking system.
In regards to subheadings, it's considered incorrect to markup a subheading with an <hX> element. What you should do is to decide on one <hX> element, wrap it in a <header> and wrap subheading-type text in <p>, <span> or similar.
The following is an example of proper subheadings, taken from the W3C documentation:
<header>
<h1>HTML 5.1 Nightly</h1>
<p>A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML</p>
<p>Editor's Draft 9 May 2013</p>
</header>
Note that there's a discrepancy between the W3C specification and the WHATWG specification where the latter uses the <hgroup> element for this specific purpose, while the former has deprecated it. I personally go with W3C's example, but most software will still understand hgroup, likely for many, many years to come, if you prefer the WHATWG approach. In fact, some argue that WHATWG should be followed over W3C when the specs differ.
In your particular example, however, I'm not sure why you chose to split the <h1> into two elements in the first place. If what you marked up as an <h1> is actually supposed to be a generic "label" for the heading, then it should probably be considered a subheading instead. If you need to split it for styling purposes, wrap the two parts of text in <span> as such:
<h1>
<span>Header:</span>
<span>my header</span>
</h1>
tl;dr is it a bad practice to change default display property in my CSS?
Its a good practice but choose carefully when to use it because it can cause some critical structure mistakes.
Why is it a good practice
The display property is open for changes. It makes HTML simple and generic. HTML elements come with a default display value that match the general behavior - what you would usually want. But they dont have to be kept and manipulated around to imitate another display property. Think about <div> for example. Obviously most of the times you want it to have display: block;, but display: flex; is much more suitable once in a while.
Lets look at a really common example of lists. <li> comes with the display property of list-item that breaks the lines for every new item.
<ul>
<li>Item 1</li>
<li>Item 2</li>
<li>Item 3</li>
</ul>
But horizontal lists are very common too. So why there is no special element for horizontal list items? Writing a special element for every common display behavior adds complexity. Instead, the convention, as also suggested by W3C is to set the <li> display property to inline.
ul li {
display:inline;
}
<ul>
<li>Item 1</li>
<li>Item 2</li>
<li>Item 3</li>
</ul>
display: inline-block; as an alternative to float
float has been used massively in page layout for many years. The problem is that it wasnt created for this task and was originally designed to wrap text around elements. A well-known float issue is that non floated elements dont recognize floated children because they are being removed from the normal flow of the document. You also cannot centrally float an element. you are limited to left or right floats only.
display is much more suitable for layout many times. display: inline-block; tells browsers to place that element inline, but to treat it as though it were a block level element. This means that we can use inline-block instead of floats to have a series of elements side by side. It is more intuitive and eliminates floats <div class="clearfix"></div> which is an additional non semantic element in your HTML.
Floats are useful when there is a need to float an element so that other page content flows around it. But there is no need to always press them into the service of a complicated layout.
Things to avoid when changing display
When you change the display property remember:
Setting the display property of an element only changes how the element is displayed, NOT what kind of element it is.
<span> test case:
In HTML early versions <span> is considered an inline-level element and <div> is block-level. Inline-level elements cannot have block-level elements inside them. Giving the <span> a display:block; doesn't change his category. It is still an inline-level element, and still cannot have <div> inside.
HTML5 introduced content models. Each HTML element has a content model: a description of the element's expected contents. An HTML element must have contents that match the requirements described in the element's content model. <span> can contain only phrasing content. It means that still you cannot nest a <div> (flow content) inside a <span>. Giving <span> a display:block; still doesn't change it.
Avoid:
span {
display:block;
}
<span>
<div>
Still Illegal!
</div>
<span>
In conclusion, changing the default display property is certainly our bread and butter. Remember that it only changes how the element is displayed, NOT what kind of element it is and use it correctly.
Now about the original two heading issue:
With respect to the comments:
Let's assume for the sake of the question, that we need to have two
headings. Or let's forget about the headings for the time being. - by the author
And also to the comment:
This question is not about resetting the display value globally. Using
selectors to target only the specific elements is implied. The
question is what we should do with these elements once selected. - by the person who set the bounty
Two headings side by side not only to handle mobile layout changes, can be done in many ways. The original example is simple and correct so its actually a good way.
h1, h2 {
display: inline;
}
<div class="container">
<h1>Header:</h1>
<h2>my header</h2>
</div>
It follows HTML rules and doesnt require any additional hacks.
Sure changing the default behaviour is redundant and even can hit performance. As a subjective solution, would recommend to use flex (but i'm not sure about performance of it, altho you can google it), it's broadly supported, and doesn't change any element css properties, it's just a layout thing, check this out
.container {
display: flex;
justify-content: flex-start;
flex-direction: column;
align-items: baseline;
}
.container.mobile {
flex-direction: row;
}
web
<div class="container">
<h1>Header:</h1>
<h2>my header</h2>
</div>
<hr />
mobile
<div class="container mobile">
<h1>Header:</h1>
<h2>my header</h2>
</div>
Notice that h1 styles stay the same
Changing default css properties is not a good idea, and should be avoided to prevent unwanted shortcomings in your markup. Instead, you should give "id" or better "class" to all html elements you want to customize and do the styling for those.
Besides, using css like "h1", "div" etc. is the slowest way as the engine try to find all those elements in the page.
In your example, it doesnt matter to use display or float as long as you give your h1 elements a css class.
Also, using correct html elements for better semantics can be useful for things such as SEO etc.
best Practice is to group the two heading in hgroup and change the display property for mobile and other views using #media query.
<hgroup class="headingContainer">
<h1>Main title</h1>
<h2>Secondary title</h2>
</hgroup>
The HTML Element (HTML Headings Group Element) represents the
heading of a section. It defines a single title that participates in
the outline of the document as the heading of the implicit or explicit
section that it belongs to.
As hgroup defines a single title for a section ,therefore changing display property within hgroup is not bed practice.
UPDATE
It seems that I might've obscured the Plunker, since Anthony Rutledge obviously failed to see (or neglected to review) it. I have provided a screen shot with a few tips on how to use the Plunker.
PLUNKER - Embed
PLUNKER - iNFO
PLUNKER - Preview
Q & A
It all leads to a simple question: Is it a bad practice to change the default display property of HTML elements?
No, not at all. Matter of fact it's a very common practice of web developers (myself included), to alter not only properties of an element, but also attributes, and it's contents to name a few.
Is it breaking the standard and should be avoided if possible?
No, but perhaps the way one goes about doing it may break the code itself which IMO is a greater concern than standards. Standards of course plays an important role but not an essential one. If that were the case, then web browsers should comply under one common set of standards (I'm talking to you IE :P). Off the top of my head, here's things that should be avoided:
Using the table element for a layout
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img></td>
<td><input type="button"/></td>
</tr>
...
Using inline styles
<div style="display: inline-block"></div>
Using inline event handlers
<div onclick='makeASandwich();'></div>
Or is it our bread and butter and it does not really matter, as long as code is semantically correct (so headers are placed in h1, articles are placed in article etc...)
Changing an element's display property is a very small yet fundamentally essential aspect of web developing. So yes I suppose it can be considered bread and butter, which would make semantics the parsley that's used as garnish and never eaten. Semantics is subjective, a way of thinking, it is not a standard. I believe a novice should be aware of it's importance (or at least how it's important to others), but should not be pontificating between an <article> and a <section> being semantically better than using a <main> and an <aside>. In due time, semantics will just feel right.
Approach #1: Use display: inline
I have never found a good reason to use display: inline because display: inline-block is a far better choice.
Approach #2: Use float
Floats are fragile antiques. Just like handling Grandma's bone china dinner plates, you must take certain precautions if you plan on using them. Be mindful of how to clear floats and don't throw them in the dishwasher.
Basically, if given only these 2 options, Approach #1 is a better choice, especially if using inline-block. I'd stay away from floats, they are counter-intuitive and break easily. I recall only using them once because a client wanted text wrapping around an image.
CSS & CSS/JS
Provided is a Snippet comprising of 3 demos:
Pure CSS solution utilizing display: flex.
Pure CSS solution utilizing display: table-row/table-cell.
CSS and minimal JavaScript solution utilizing display: inline-block and the classList API
Each of these demos are identical on the surface:
HTML
<section id="demo1" class="area">
<!--==Pure CSS Demo #1==-->
<!--======Flexbox=======-->
<header class="titles">
<h1>Demo 1 - </h1>
<h2>display: flex</h2>
</header>
</section>
This is the original markup with the following changes:
div.container is now header.titles
h1 text is: "Demo #n"
h2 text is: "prop:value"
section#demo#n.area is wrapped around everything.
This is a good example of semantics: Everything has meaning
You'll notice at the bottom of the viewport, are buttons. Each button corresponds to a demo.
Details on how each demo works as well as pros and cons are in the following files located in the leftside menu of the Plunker (see screenshot):
demo1.md flexbox
demo2.md disply: table
demo3.md classList
PLUNKER
These notes are not for the purpose of informing the OP of anything relevant to the question. Rather they are observations that I would like to address later on.
Further Notes
Demo 1 and demo 2 are powered by the pseudo-class :target. Clicking either one of them will trigger the click event It resembles an event because it's invoked by a click, but there's no way of controlling, or knowing the capture or bubbling phase if it actually exists. Upon further clicking of the first and second button, it will exhibit odd behavior such as: toggling of the other button then eventually becoming non-functional. I suspect the shortcomings of :target is that CSS handles events in a completely different way with little or no interaction with the user.
You should use:
$('element').css('display','');
That will set display to whatever is the default for element according to the current CSS cascade.
For example:
<span></span>
$('span').css('display','none');
$('span').css('display','');
will result in a span with display: inline.
But:
span { display: block }
<span></span>
$('span').css('display','none');
$('span').css('display','');
You can use flex box to arrange elements also, like this
<div class="container" style="display: flex;">
<h1>Header:</h1>
<h2>my header</h2>
</div>
Try to read this tutorial about flex, it is really great and easy to use
https://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/a-guide-to-flexbox/
General structure of my LESS is like:
div {
table { .. }
}
div {
table & { .. }
}
Wanting to know the CSS-only solution using LESS here. I have:
<div>
<table></table>
</div>
And I want to do something like:
div {
& > table:empty { display: none; }
}
But completely opposite of what this is doing and instead of affecting the table here, it affects the div. Of course this is just an example since this is saying hide table if empty whereas I want to say hide div if child table is empty. I want a LESS version that will hide the div. Due to padding and a border the div is visible even when the child table is empty.
Thinking about it I think the answer will be no because LESS compiles to actual CSS and since there is no way to accomplish this in CSS, I'm assuming there's no way in LESS either. It just doesn't hurt to ask.
You're right - there is no parent selector in CSS, and therefore LESS - meaning, you can't style an element's parent based on a selector for the element itself. I would look for a solution using whatever script framework or backend framework you have that's building your markup.
I have updated my code and made a fiddle which explains what I am trying to do. I had a similar question before but it did not reflect the fluidity of the template.
I have a totally fluid layout and I need to make a div display under another.
I want to do it with CSS and I'd prefer not to use javascript or jquery.
Here is the fiddle:
http://jsfiddle.net/sexywebteacher/7hCNC/20/
I was maybe unclear:
I am talking about the section1 and section2 divs in the fiddle
Do you think this can be done?
Thank you!
If both the height of the image and the text are variable, it's not particularly easy with pure CSS.
The height being variable rules out anything based on position: absolute, as in the answers you received to your previous similar question.
One option is to use the technique shown here: http://tanalin.com/en/articles/css-block-order/
It is possible to change vertical order of blocks on HTML page using
CSS table presentation using properties of display: table family.
Regardles of block order in HTML code, header (table-header-group) of
such table is displayed at the top of it, footer (display:
table-footer-group)—at the bottom, and table body
(table-row-group)—between header and footer.
This works in all modern browsers, and IE8 if you're careful. It does not work in IE6/7.
Here's your code using this technique: http://jsfiddle.net/thirtydot/7hCNC/35/
I have to admit that I've never used this technique on a production website, so please test thoroughly.
A different approach that will work in all browsers that support CSS3 2D transforms is to vertically flip the whole container, and then do the same to the "image" and the "text" elements. In browsers that do not support CSS3 transforms, everything will still work, but the "image" and "text" elements will be in their original order. In other words, it degrades nicely. It's probably possible to make this work in IE6-8 using filter, but that would make the text look horrible, so forget about it.
Here's your code using this technique: http://jsfiddle.net/thirtydot/7hCNC/36/
If none of these CSS methods are good enough, you'll have to use JavaScript.
However, I personally recommend that you just switch the order in the HTML. I doubt Google cares about it. In this case, I really doubt that bending over backwards to keep your HTML in the "optimum order" will have any meaningful SEO impact.
Add to floating div "clearfix" class where in CSS
.clearfix:before, .clearfix:after { content: "\0020"; display: block; height: 0; overflow: hidden; }
.clearfix:after { clear: both; }
.clearfix { zoom: 1; }
For ex:
<div class="column clearfix">
...
</div>
You could either change the width to be exact width (or add it as min-width) and let them naturally fall under each other or simply clear which will force them under each other
eg
.clear {
clear:both;
}
your jsfiddle
Here is another example of clear. I like to use this in cases where the element after the clear is not always consistent. It uses the psuedo elements to place a space with the clear attribute.
.clear:after{
content:".";
line-height:0;
height:0;
display:block;
clear:both;
visibility:hidden;
}
I am going to replace the table with divs for that I used
<div class="div-table">
<div class="div-table-row">
<div class="div-table-col">Benefits</div>
</div>
<div class="div-table-row">
<div class="div-table-col">Preferences</div>
</div>
</div>
with CSS
.div-table{ display:table; }
.div-table-row{ display:table-row; }
.div-table-col{ display:table-cell; }
I want to fix the table rows top .div-table-row1, .div-table-row2, .div-table-row3 ... etc.
So that at runtime I could rearrange the rows by changing the styles of rows.
such that preferences could come in first row if I assign just .div-table-row1 to it.
I am afraid that it would be rather impractical to achieve that (assuming I got your objective right) using CSS. You'd need to move the <div>s by changing their positions e.g. using position: absolute -- again, this wouldn't make a lot of sense.
You might want to consider a JavaScript solution. Not suggesting jQuery in particular, but this jQuery plugin is pretty hand: Tablesorter.
I'll recap the comments + answer.
The question was whether or not table-rows tr could be rearranged with CSS. They just take on the order in which they are coded in html.
The properties display: table, display: table-cell, and display: table-row essentially mimic an html table as their names suggest. See the available display properties here
You can achieve this with JavaScript of course. Take a look at jQuery UI's Sortable for example.
I don't get what you want to know clearly but in my case, i try golovko fixedheader table and it works fine even with dynamic table except some bugs .If the table is static,you can do with just css and js which control the height and width of table.
I don't see the point of using either http://960.gs or http://blueprintcss.org if they enforce margins other than for pretty magazine layouts/marketing-esq brochures. Is there a way I can use these to meet certain design requirements such as a navbar that can actually touch/wrap-around to the header? Any input to use these frameworks without margins (as they enforce browser compatability onto the less CSS guru level developers) would be ideal. (Note: we are using JSF, this is also a development shop not a web shop at all)
I use this technique as my ultimate CSS layout technique:
http://www.codeofficer.com/blog/entry/css_grid_frameworks_960gs_without_margins/
I had the same issue once, and since I use that one, all the margin headaches has dissapear.
I use !important overide when I need to use custom width/height.
The Code:
<div class="g_9 content_main">
This div should actually have 720px in width.
But I overide it using another class so now the width has become 700px,
and just in case it needs custom margin, we can always set it in the css :)
</div>
The CSS:
.c_12 .g_9, .c_16 .g_12 { width: 720px; } /* 960-full.css */
.content_main { width: 700px !important; margin-left: 15px;} /* style.css */
You don't have to use the grid classes for every div on your site. If you're header doesn't need to follow the grid layout then create your own styles for the header. You can also skip the grid completely and just use the form & typography markups. The frameworks are an attempt to bring a bit of consistency to your projects.
I'm using blueprint for the main content but the header area has it's own custom layout.
Here's a mod I wrote that works with the 960gs to help you create elements that touch, without rewriting the framework.
http://www.michaelhartmayer.com/css/960gs-margin-mod