How can we know if any website is using Sass and Compass for CSS?
That's a though one, but I would take a look at the CSS files, IF the developers forgot about changing the output, you'll be able to spot the file names and line numbers of the source files.
If not, look for uncommon patterns in the CSS output, for instance SASS makes nesting very easy to do, so a selector could look like this in the CSS (you would never hand-write this long selectors)
div#wrapper div#container ul#myId li a { color: blue; }
div#wrapper div#container ul#myId li.sass a { color: red; }
But would be look like this in SASS source file (no repetition, easy to getaway with)
div#wrapper {
div#container {
ul#myId {
li {
a { color: blue; }
&.sass {
a { color: red; }
}
}
}
}
}
Also, look for lengthy class combinations, those come from using the #extend directive, that would look like this:
.button, .button1, .button-submit, .button-add-to-cart, .button-signup, .button-register {
display: inline-block;
}
Another good idea is to look in the source of CSS3 generated buttons, usually developers only care for Firefox, Safari, Chrome and IE, but a SASS generated output will be REALLY verbose with a lot of vendor prefixes, including ones for Opera.
Good luck!
if the developer forgot to compile for production or minify the .css, than you should still be able to see the automatically inserted comments that point back to the original source, like:
/* line 22, ../../../../../Ruby193/lib/ruby/gems/1.9.1/gems/compass-0.12.2/frameworks/compass/stylesheets/compass/reset/_utilities.scss */
.selector {
bla: 123;
}
or
/* line 5, sass/large/_common.scss */
.selector {
bla: 123;
}
Related
I want to write a single rule for all browser pseudo-elements in type=range input separated by commas, but realised it's not working in my case
//this works
input[type="range"] {
&::-webkit-slider-runnable-track {
height: 2px;
}
}
//this doesn't
input[type="range"] {
&::-webkit-slider-runnable-track, &::-ms-track, &::-moz-range-track {
height: 2px;
}
}
Googling shows that some applications of this work like here Simplified SASS selectors for child pseudo elements?
But maybe the case is in my sass version, or I can't use it with this kind of pseudos?
I would like to know which way of coding stylesheets is better in terms of performance, readability and everyday use case.
Let's say we want to make styles:
.container {
background-color: red;
.nested-container {
color: blue;
}
}
.container-two {
background-color: black;
.nested-container {
color: blue;
}
}
I wonder which way is more efficient for this kind of case.
/* mixins way */
#mixin duplicated-container {
.nested-container {
color: blue;
}
}
.container {
background-color: red;
#include duplicated-container;
}
.container-two {
background-color: black;
#include duplicated-container;
}
/* combined sets way */
.container {
background-color: red;
}
.container-two {
background-color: black;
}
.container,
.container-two {
.nested-container {
color: blue;
}
}
First way is much more readable, at least for me.
Second way makes output file smaller than when using mixins, because code is not duplicated in any way.
Please keep it in mind that this is just very simple example of what i want to achieve, if container and container-two are in two different places in file, first way makes it very readable and easy to play with, but it duplicates code in final output, so i'm not sure if it is good to use mixins this way.
This has been big dilemma for me for last few days and i decided to ask professionals for help, because I always end up with messy stylesheets.
I appreciate all help.
The first seems like a better choice, since classes are listed in a single place.
With the second approach, once you add a .container-three you'd have to remember to also add it to the list of classes under which .nested-container is gettings its styles from.
You should not worry about the filesize when using mixins. With a modern pipeline of CSS minifier and gzipped content being default for most servers, duplicating content in CSS does not significantly increase the filesize, and might even perform better.
Do not worry about duplicating code. It's a micro-optimisation that would be heavily optimised by gzip anyway. Go for readability in this case.
Are there any tools to compile CSS custom properties declared at not :root rule? I want following code with custom properties
.dark {
--bg-color: black;
--fg-color: white;
}
.light {
--bg-color: white;
--fg-color: black;
}
.foo {
background: var(--bg-color);
display: block;
}
.bar {
color: var(--fg-color);
display: inline;
}
be compiled to their non-custom-prop equivalents like that
.light .foo, .light.foo {
background: white;
}
.dark .foo, .dark.foo {
background: black;
}
.light .bar, .light.bar {
color: black;
}
.dark .bar, .dark.bar {
color: white;
}
.foo {
display: block;
}
.bar {
display: inline;
}
The goal is to
switch color schemes by switching dark/light class on root DOM element
use valid css syntax (no sass less)
keep rules code compact
It's actually not safe to do that. I can tell you because I tried so hard to make a safe transformation.
But I failed.
https://github.com/postcss/postcss-custom-properties/issues/1
Ideal solution. Your example is valid CSS and can be used in many browsers (not in IE, Edge (but is in development) and Opera Mini as of writing this answer, 2017-03-27, other major browsers are fine).
Suboptimal solution. Some CSS can be transpiled to achieve better browser support. The solution I found does not support variables on non-:root elements, however. There are also other objections against transpiling of 'future' CSS into 'current' CSS. To the best of my knowledge, you will have to implement your own transpiler (or postcss plugin) if you want to transpile custom properties not on the :root element, but be warned that that is hard in general. Now you don't need the general part, so it is possible. Just does, to the best of my knowledge, not exist yet.
Preprocessing solution. Of course, you don't need a general implementation of custom properties. You have different themes that have their own values for the same set of properties and that's it. Thus, a separate stylesheet can be created as a preprocessing step using any CSS preprocessor.
Now you say the following,
use valid css syntax (no sass less)
but I am going to show this anyway, because I believe that it is a valid solution to your problem. It is definitely the only one I know that actually works if you want to/need to support IE, Edge and/or older versions of other major browsers (Firefox < 31, Chrome < 49, Safari < 9.1, Opera < 36)
You could do this using SASS for example, to do the transpiling on the server side.
// define styles, use variables throughout them
// your entire style definition goes into this mixin
#mixin myStyles($fg-color, $bg-color) {
.foo {
display: block;
background: $bg-color;
}
.bar {
display: inline;
color: $fg-color;
}
}
// define themes, that set variables for the above styles
// use named arguments for clarity
.dark {
#include myStyles(
$fg-color: white,
$bg-color: black
);
}
.light {
#include myStyles(
$fg-color: black,
$bg-color: white
);
}
This compiles to the following.
.dark .foo {
display: block;
background: black;
}
.dark .bar {
display: inline;
color: white;
}
.light .foo {
display: block;
background: white;
}
.light .bar {
display: inline;
color: black;
}
This is not exactly what you want to obtain, but very close. Realistically, I think this is the closest you will get to obtaining your desired output. I know you want to
keep rules code compact
but what you are saying there (I think) is that you want to split out custom properties from their rules to save on number of rules, which is not something any preprocessor I know supports.
You can organize your source SASS in separate files to keep an overview easily. You can even set up a build system that generates a separate stylesheet for every theme you have. It is then possible to have your users select an alternative stylesheet. Browsers have some support for this, but switching using JavaScript is also definitely possible in the latter case. Simply set all stylesheets to be disabled except for the selected one. Here is an example.
tl:dr version: is there a way to #extend a css class and not have the original class appear in my compiled css without changing all my css classes to %placeholder classes?
Short answer based on the below answers: it appears there is no way to do this unless you go through and convert the css to silent/placeholder classes e.g. convert .one{} to %one{} and even then that will cause problems with media queries.
I have a css file (lets call it "style.css") which contains 200+ CSS classes to style various elements like forms and buttons etc. What I want is to include some of those classes in a project and other classes from that file in other random projects/websites. With each new project I also want to give the classes random semantic class names of my choosing.
My preprocessor of choice when working with CSS is SCSS and I really need an answer that uses the power of SCSS.
Here is a quick example of what I'm talking about - loading css into a SCSS file and then extending that css with my own class names:
//style.css
.one {
color: red;
padding-top: 1px;
}
//style2.scss
#import "style.css";
.two {
#extend .one;
}
The problem here is that my SCSS file will compile to CSS and look like this:
//style2.css
.one {
color: red;
padding-top: 1px;
}
.two {
color: red;
padding-top: 1px;
}
But what I want to do is only include the second class, which I gave a special name.
I've tried a few ways of doing this but here's one example that does not work but is along the lines of what I was thinking I should be able to do:
A.) First, I grab the style.css file and chuck copy/paste it into a style.scss file.
B.) Second I wrap all the whole thing in a placeholder/silent class, like so:
//style.scss
%placeholder {
.one {
color: red;
padding-top: 1px;
}
}
C.) Then I import that SCSS file and try and extend a class of my choosing that is within the placeholder, like this:
//style2.scss
#import "style";
.two {
#extend .one;
}
When I try and compile this I get a blank css file (and rightly so for trying to be too tricky). The other thing I know is that you can't extend nested selectors so "#extend %placeholder .one;" is also out of the question.
My question is this: does anyone know of a way to import and then extend a css class so that the compiled result does not include the imported css?
The only other solution I can think of is to just delete the imported css from the top of my file before I let it out into the wild. But this is honestly less than ideal solution.
Thank you in advance to any answers :)
You're using placeholders incorrectly, the placeholder should simply be one, no need to wrap it. Try this:
// style.scss
%one {
color: red;
padding-top: 1px;
}
// style2.scss
#import "style";
.two {
#extend %one;
}
Note that there is an issue with this approach. While the outputted CSS is leaner than using a mixin (#include), you will not be able to use %one inside of any #media queries. Ie. this will not work:
// style2.scss
#import "style";
#media screen and (max-width:1024px) {
.two {
// This won't produce CSS as it's inside the media query
#extend %one;
}
}
The only way I'm aware to get around this is to use a mixin instead of a placeholder which will result in more CSS (if you use one more than once).
// style.scss
#mixin one() {
color: red;
padding-top: 1px;
}
// style2.scss
#import "style";
#media screen and (max-width:1024px) {
.two {
#include one();
}
}
I've detailed the difference in output between mixins and placeholder selectors on my blog if you're not aware.
I have a CSS file that has all -moz-css-propertythroughout. What is the most efficient way to convert this file to one that also addresses Chrome, Safari, etc.? I'm hoping for a simple webapp that can do some magic.
I'm sure someone can get all fancy on this, but I'd just do some ctrl+f action on it.
If you've got a lot of repeating the same css values, this may be a good opportunity to optimize your code.
So...
.foo {
color: red;
}
.bar {
color: red;
}
could become...
.foo, .bar {
color: red;
}
This will probably do 75% of what you want:
sed 's/\(.*\)-moz-\(.*\)/\1-webkit-\2\
\1-moz-\2\
\1-o-\2\
\1\2/1' test.css
Of course, IE will explode if you look at it funny.