How do you organise CSS in your project? [closed] - css

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 6 years ago.
Improve this question
One of the most challenging thing I have felt while working on (complex) web application is the organizing the CSS.Here are the different approaches we have tried on multiple projects.
1: Have a different stylesheet for every web page/module.
Obviously we were very new to web apps then, and this approach resulted in too many style sheets and too much repetition of styles. We had a tough time to achieve consistency across the application.
2: Have a common style sheets which is shared across the similar web pages.
This worked well for sometime until it became too complex. Also we found that we had too many exceptions which still resulted in tweaking common styles for particular cases, which if done incorrectly can affect different parts of the application and at some point it becomes difficult. Also having a large development team (across different time zones) and tough project timeline didn't helped our cause.
Although #2 works, but still we have seen our products still doesn't have the similar UI quality and consistency as we would like to.
Are there any CSS style guidelines that one should refer for very complex web 2.0 application. How do other people maintain their stylesheets?

I've found myself in similar situations.
First off, make sure that you're using CSS effectively. If you don't feel like you're an absolute pro at using CSS, take some time to study up and you'll significantly reduce redundancy and end up with a stylesheet that's easier to work with.
In most cases, there isn't much of a performance hit if you consolidate all of your styles into one file, and in fact, splitting your styles into dozens of files just so that you can be sure to exclude any that won't be used is likely to result in longer loading times because of all of the extra requests. But as I'm sure you know, a massive CSS file can quickly grow into a headache to maintain.
Consider this hack to achieve a compromise. Use your language of choice (PHP for me) to serve up your CSS. By that I mean include your style file like this:
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="styles.php" />
, have the header of that file return it with the text/CSS content type, and have that file
a) Pull multiple stylesheets into one file
and/or
b) Change how the styles are written depending on various parameters (file being loaded, user data, time of day, etc.)
A is a good solution overall for reducing developmental headache and page-loading overhead. B will likely necessitate you also setting appropriate file expiration dates to avoid having the browser just ignore whatever new styles you want to generate at the moment in favor of what was downloaded on the last visit. Since you can usually accomplish the same thing in B as you can by simply having a static stylesheet and dynamically-written element class/ID names, it's generally not an ideal solution unless if you're doing something really strange.
And get a designer to advise you on this kind of stuff. Often it's hard for us developers to wrap our heads around some of the finer points of efficient CSS as well as people trained in that specific area.

I've been in this a lot of times. First, in the early times, I used to do just a stylesheet with everything inside, not much anyway, was the old times; then I decided for your second approach, the first one I luckily thought it was a mistake, too much code and pieces floating around...
The second approach is good up to the time when you start to make questions...
I mean:
Should the background style for this div go in the graphic.css or in the layout.css?
Should the font style go in fonts.css or in layout when comes to the width of the P?
Should the margin for a title with the icon position div go to the graphic.css or to the layout.css or to the fonts.css (it would be simpler to use the same declaration for the icon, the text and the position...)?
Then you realized there's something wrong about this approach.
What I do now is commenting. A LOT.
template.css -
/* ////// Headers ////// */
#header {
width: 1004px;
height: 243px; /* 263H-20MARG=243H */
padding: 20px 0px 0px 0px;
background-color: #000000;
background-image:url('../images/redset/top1-bk.png');
background-repeat:no-repeat;
background-position:right top;
clear: both;
}
/* logo */
#logo {
background-image:url('../images/redset/wh-logo.png');
background-repeat:no-repeat;
width:327px;
height: 263px;
float: left;
margin: -20px 0px 0px 0px;
}
#logo a {
width:327px;
height:263px;
}
/* Top menu & Banner */
#menuybanner {
text-align: center;
/* margin-right: 65px; optional*/
}
#bannerz {
height: 152px;
width: 653px;
text-align: left;
margin-right: 24px;
/* optional: width: 100%;
margin: 0px */
}
#bigmenu {
text-align: left;
margin: 18px 0px 14px 74px;
}
#bigmenu img {
margin: 0px 22px 0px 0px;
}
Originally this would have been in three different css: layout, graphics and texts. Now I know what everyone does.
By the way I know it rises the weight of the archive but I prefer not to do some mixed effects, cause everyone that comes after me and reads the css should be able to understand what I did and css like these:
a, .b, .c, .d, #f, #2 { background-color: black; }
Are really hard to unveil. Of course if you need to do it, go ahead, but I mean, sometimes they are just grouped like for nothing just to be more cryptic... like moodle... hahaha.
Hope being of help.
See ya.

You want to take advantage of cascading nature of CSS and the ways rules are inherited.
Code first the most general cases and then change specifics.
For a normal size project this should not get out of hand at all.
To see things more clearly you can use an index sheet and call other stylesheets from it. When you want to make changes you will know which stylesheet to go to and you will save time. Here is an example from one of my prqjects.
/*
This is the CSS index page. It contains no CSS code but calls the other sheets
*/
#import url("main/reset.css");
#import url("main/colors.css");
#import url("main/structure.css");
#import url("main/html-tags.css");
#import url("main/sign-up-sign-in.css");
#import url("main/pagination.css");
#import url("main/menu-items.css");
#import url("main/teachers-list.css");
#import url("main/footer.css");
#import url("main/misc-custom-sections.css");
#import url("main/error-messages.css");
Good luck finding your own style.

I use one mastersheet template.css which styles my main template. For any site which requires a seperate bit of styling that can't be covered by the main template I either put it in the site head, if it's short, or create a new sheet for that case.
Ideally I want to design the template.css file to be flexible to cover most cases.

I typically try to group my CSS by visual elements, and only include relevant stylesheets for a given page to keep my load times low. Using PHP or whatever environment you use to dynamically merge the required stylesheets into a single stylesheet for a given page is a good solution.
One thing that helps me is that I actually created pseudo namespaces for my CSS. I know that CSS 3 has support for namespaces, and that makes it easier, but since some browsers don't support it, this is what I do:
Create folders and files relevant to your project ( I use Java namespace style )
For example /css/com/mydomain/myprojectname/globalheader.css
Next, I use class names that map to the file system location
For example <div id='header' class='com-mydomain-myprojectname-globalheader-topClass'>
Use separators and good comments in your css file
For example /*---------------------------- begin link section --------------------*/
Use PHP or whatever to load these files and combine them into one stylesheet on load ( you could cache the resulting sheets if you are really clever. The namespace convention will prevent collisions between class names.
While the designers think this is verbose, it makes it really easy to find specific css classes in the file system, without a load time hit. Also, you won't have the problem of one designer / developer overwriting another's classes.

maintaining css files is a LOT easier if you can get everyone on board with utilizing cascading properly and keep your targeting strengths to the minimum.
Make sure that elements inherit styles and that overrides aren't too heavy will keep your css from getting crazy. By doing this, you then allow yourself to have just 2 or 3 style sheets for layout/base styles and overrides. If you put heavy control levels on what gets into the layout/base style sheets, and make regular trips in to reassess whats in the overrides sheet to see what can be moved up to the base and what can be simplified you'll free yourselves up to allow people to override at will, but also to keep control of creep.
There's my theory...

Related

Use SASS mixin or create separate class is better? [closed]

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
In our project we use SASS for styles development. Also, we use Bootstrap and it contains next well-known mixin:
#mixin clearfix {
*zoom: 1;
&:before,
&:after {
display: table;
content: "";
// Fixes Opera/contenteditable bug:
// http://nicolasgallagher.com/micro-clearfix-hack/#comment-36952
line-height: 0;
}
&:after {
clear: both;
}
}
And we use it in our styles:
.class-example {
#include clearfix();
. . .
}
After the compilation into CSS, SASS copies all content of mixin into each class we used mixin. So, it's a big amount of duplicated code. We use mixin about 100 times, so it's about 1000 extra lines in css.
So, the question: which is better form performance/support/readability/etc. point of view
Use mixin and allow duplicated code be
Create class .clearfix and use it in markup like <span
class="example-class clearfix"> ... </span> to avoid duplication
Also, if someone has better solution - I'll be glad to get it. Any comments/discussions are welcome.
To begin with, I'd like to mention that applying overflow: hidden to an element with floating children clears the floats much like how including the clearfix mixin you're talking about does it.
For readability and performance, this is probably the clear winner. I don't have any data supporting that overflow: hidden actually renders faster than the clearfix, but I wouldn't be surprised if it does. It's much less CSS, though, so it's definitely a winner in terms of downloaded data.
It's not always possible to use overflow: hidden though as your layout may have some relative positioning going on. In those cases, the best performant method is to create a global class for .clearfix and apply it to all elements that are supposed to clear their children. While it doesn't sound like it's easily maintainable, I'd argue that it is more easily maintainable that including that mixin throughout your CSS since you won't have to clear the cached CSS whenever you make changes.
My recommendation is to use both overflow: hidden and .clearfix. Scrap #include clearfix.
The reasoning is that you can't always get away with just one method (sometimes you may want to use the :after element for something else, sometimes you may want content to stretch outside their containers) so having both available makes sense anyway.
With both methods available you're able to adapt to any scenario. Just remember you could tie overflow: hidden to a class name to keep it just as DRY as .clearfix.
My 2¢.
Edit:
Alternatively, but maybe not ideally, you could use #extend to create an output like this:
.element-1,
.element-2,
.element-3,
.element-4,
.element-5 {
// clearfix stuff
}
So that clearfix is defined at one place rather than multiple times through the document. Personally I'm not a big fan of it, but perhaps it makes sense to you.
I would suggest to make it a "helper" -class as you fine said your self, they are alot more agile and you put them where they are needed, also there are different clearfixes depending on the situration, some are overflow fixes some are table layout fixes and so on, i would rather create a class and add them where its needed, this also makes you layout classes independent of clear fixing. So they can live as stand alone and reusable codes not to have to worry if the clearfix could mess up potential layouts :)
Im using them as classes for a better and more agile way to do my layouts.
Edit, so i would say your solution number 2 is the best also for not as u are saying duplicating 100 lines of code.
Like others have said already, for a simple utility mixin like this, I'd define it as an extension instead, like this:
%clearfix {
//clearfix code
}
And then use it in the SASS like this:
.container{
#extend %clearfix;
}
This way, no matter how many times you extend it, the code that it outputs is in the CSS only once, instead of hundreds of times.
I would argue against using classes like clearfloat or clearfix in the markup unless you reeeallly need to-- why muddle up the markup when you can do it better and faster with CSS? Instead of tracking through a lot of different markup files, you can easily change it in one place, in your SASS file.
This allows you to have everything in one place, instead of spread out in many places, which makes maintaining it much easier, as I know from experience.
I am using bootstrap's less files in my current project and it has the following in mixins.less file:
// UTILITY MIXINS
// --------------------------------------------------
// Clearfix
// --------
.clearfix {
*zoom: 1;
&:before,
&:after {
display: table;
content: "";
// Fixes Opera/contenteditable bug:
// http://nicolasgallagher.com/micro-clearfix-hack/#comment-36952
line-height: 0;
}
&:after {
clear: both;
}
}
we can define so-called "mixins", which have some similarities to functions in programming languages. They’re used to group CSS instructions in handy, reusable classes. Mixins allow you to embed all the properties of a class into another class by simply including the class name as one of its properties. It’s just like variables, but for whole classes. Any CSS class or id ruleset can be mixed-in that way:
.container{
.clearfix();
}
As far as clearfix is concerned, I just use it as clearfix because it is doing one task which is clearing floats and i.e. what bootstrap offers one class to get a particular task. It is independent of other classes.
You can use it in html like this:
<div class="clearfix"></div>
I recommend using the mixin and don't worry about the very small performance hit. In the future if there are certain content types that you no longer want to use the clearfix on, you will have to go through all of your html to remove the tag.
It is always safer to keep your markup clean and do your layout and styling in the css. In this case you are taking a very small performance hit in order to save yourself in terms of future support. If you are seeing performance as an issue, you might want to think about ways that you could set up your markup or css so that you don't have so many classes that call .clearfix.
First of all!
I would start off by suggesting not using overflow: hidden. It is a hack and therefore will lead to confusing code for people in the future, especially new people to any business you apply this code in. There are also repercussions that a JavaScript developer would have to contend with for any position related elements.
So what are the PROS and CONS of applying a clearfix class everywhere or just applying an include within your SASS?
clearfix class
clearfix on a DOM element shows that the content is floating to any person without looking any further. The clearfix styling is written only once, making your Stylesheet files smaller.
#include clearfix
Great whoooop dee doo, let's all use the include everywhere and expand our Stylesheet mass shall we. But wait! I did find an interesting opportunity to really use it, which I will do for this exact reason.
If you have classes not in a template that requires a clearfix, so written all over the DOM. I could imagine wanting to use the include option. Though this is fairly rare.
Also, as a class undergoing responsive changes on the page suddenly requires a clearfix, you can nestle that within a nice #import media() with bourbon neat for example. But even this would be rare as you could just apply the clearfix again and be done with it right from the start.
Conclusion
I think a happy medium is called for, which should always be the case when writing SASS. But that is my personal opinion :-P

Are CSS Minifiers that combine elements destructive?

I found this CSS minifier (http://www.lotterypost.com/css-compress.aspx). There is a section at the bottom of that page labelled "What does the CSS Compressor purposely NOT do?" There are four things, two of which I couldn't understand why they might be destructive:
Combining individual margin, padding, or border styles into a single property.
margin-top: 10px;
margin-right: 0;
margin-bottom: 8px;
margin-left: 30px;
Becomes
margin: 10px 0 8px 30px;
And combining styles for the same element that are specified in different style blocks.
#element {
margin: 0;
}
#element {
color: #000000;
}
Becomes
#element {
margin: 0;
color: #000000;
}
I think CSSTidy does both of these. Is the web page above correct? Are there situations where these types of minification might be a problem?
I'm the developer of the CSS Compressor that is the subject of this question (http://www.lotterypost.com/css-compress.aspx), so I'll elaborate with an example of how a compressor can break the CSS cascade if a tool aggressively re-writes it.
There are many ways of targeting elements in a style sheet, and because a CSS compressor does not have intimate knowledge of the page’s DOM structure, classes, ids, etc., there is no way for a compressor to know if an optimization that crosses bracketed definitions will break or not.
For example, a simple HTML structure:
<div class="normal centered">
<p>Hello world.</p>
</div>
And some CSS:
div.normal p {
margin: 10px 0 10px 0;
}
div.centered p {
margin: 10px auto;
}
div.normal p {
margin-bottom: 5px;
}
The uncompressed code would produce a centered paragraph with a 10px top margin and a 5px bottom margin.
If you run the CSS styles through the CSS Compressor, you'll get the following code, which maintains the order and cascade of the original uncompressed styles.
div.normal p{margin:10px 0}div.centered p{margin:10px auto}div.normal p{margin-bottom:5px}
Let's say you want to aggressively compress the styles further, by combining the margins of the two div.normal p definitions. They both have the exact same selector, and they appear to redundantly style the bottom margin.
There would be two ways to combine the margins: you can either combine the two margin definitions into the first (top) div.normal p style or combine them into the last (bottom) one. Let's try both ways.
If you combine the margins into the first (top) div.normal p style, you get this:
div.normal p{margin:10px 0 5px}div.centered p{margin:10px auto}
The result of combining the margins that way would result in the bottom margin being incorrectly set to 10px, because the "centered" class would override the bottom margin (because the "centered" style defintion now appears later in the cascade).
If you combine the margins into the last (bottom) div.normal p style, you get this:
div.centered p{margin:10px auto}div.normal p{margin:10px 0 5px}
The result of combining the margins that way would result in the paragraph no longer appearing as centered, because the bottom "p" definition would override the left and right margins of "auto" that are defined in the "centered" class.
So we can see that by combining style definitions that even have the exact same selector can cause some pretty bad problems.
Would you personally ever write code like this? Maybe or maybe not. Because of the various "weight" rules of the cascade, it is possible to fall into this type of code trap without ever realizing it.
Furthermore, given the fact that in today's Web pages, multiple CSS files are often combined into one file to hit the server with fewer downloads, it is easy to imagine the CSS Compressor royally screwing up the cascade by re-writing multiple style sheets (possibly written by different people) that are appended together into one file.
In fact, I wrote the CSS Compressor for this very scenario on my Web site, Lottery Post. Each Web page has many style sheets supporting various jQuery and other components, and the CSS Compressor is used to automatically compress all of those style sheets into one single download. All pages on the site have at least 10 different style sheets combined together, and most pages have more than that.
For example, if you look at the code behind the CSS Compressor page itself, you will find the main style sheet in the head that looks like this:
<link rel="stylesheet" href="http://lp.vg/css/d11019.0/j2HKnp0oKDOVoos8SA3Bpy3UHd7cAuftiXRBTKCt95r9plCnvTtBMU2BY2PoOQDEUlKCgDn83h16Tv4jbcCeZ(gupKbOQ9ko(TcspLAluwgBqrAjEhOyXvkhqHA(h5WFDypZDK2TIr(xEXVZtX7UANdFp6n1xfnxqIMR8awqGE)vrwUgY2hrCGNNTt1xV7R1LtCSfF46qdH1YQr2iA38r1SQjAgHze(9" />
The gobbledeegook in the URL is actually an encrypted string containing all the style sheets to combine on the server. The server compresses them and caches the result.
The space- and time-saving techniques on that one style sheet call include:
Combining many style sheets into one file/download by simply appending them all together
Compressing the combined style sheet using the CSS Compressor (without messing up the cascade!)
Using a different domain name (lp.vg) for the style sheet download, which improves the browser's ability to download in parallel
Using a very short domain name (lp.vg)
GZip compression is applied to the style sheet on the Web server
The version number of the style sheet is embedded into the URL (".../d11019.0/...") so that if any style is changed in any of the multiple style sheets, I can change the version number and the browser will never use the version it has cached. (Note that the version number should be part of the URL path, not in the query string, because some proxy servers do not look at the query string to determine if a page should be retrieved from cache.)
I hope this better explains things and is helpful to those looking to improve page performance!
-Todd
MORE INFO:
To add to the above, imagine if we take your color example, and combine style definitions with the same selectors.
Here are some uncompressed styles:
div.normal p {
margin: 10px 0 10px 0;
}
div.centered p {
margin: 10px auto;
color: blue;
}
div.normal p {
color: black;
}
The CSS Compressor produces the following output:
div.normal p{margin:10px 0}div.centered p{margin:10px auto;color:blue}div.normal p{color:#000}
If we were to apply aggressive combining of style definitions that have the same selector, we will get the following code.
Method 1, combining both into the first definition, would incorrectly make the text color blue:
div.normal p{margin:10px 0;color:#000}div.centered p{margin:10px auto;color:blue}
Method 2, combining both into the second definition, would incorrectly make the text left-aligned:
div.centered p{margin:10px auto;color:blue}div.normal p{margin:10px 0;color:#000}
The only time combining style definitions with the same selector is 100% error-free is when the definitions appear directly one after the other, but in every other case this technique risks corrupting the cascade of styles.
I couldn't imagine a case where any developer would write code in this manner (two style definitions with the exact same selector, one immediately after the other), so I concluded that the amount of effort required to code it, and the possibility of an additional point of failure in the compressor, was not worth it by a long-shot.
Frankly, I would be very concerned about a CSS compressor that combined styles from different definition blocks, because the cascade is a very fragile thing, and it is extremely easy to break the cascade.
The page has a section on 'reason not used' that describes why it doesn't do these two things.
And on top of that, I would assume it's not trying to do these things because it isn't a complete CSS parser/interpreter, and would start to bork stuff like CSS conditional blocks.
By 'destructive' I presume you mean 'the CSS does not work as expected'.
Combining long-hand rules such as your first example can be done without any ill effects at all.
In a plain old stylesheet with no media blocks or other fancy stuff, the second example will also not cause any problem.
The reason #2 is risky is because changing the order of rules, or folding rules together without taking the Cascade into account, can result in breakages.
Some CSS compressors can reorder rules alphabetically, or by selector type. These are very risky because moving rules around may break cascaded behavour the author created.
Minifiers like the YUI compressor don't do any of these, opting for safer strategies like removing whitespace, redundant semi-colons and zeros, and the like.
With more CSS containing media blocks and other CSS3 code it is likely that many of the current CSS compressors won't work correctly at all. Most do not have a proper lexer for parsing the code - they use context aware byte-by-byte (Tidy) or regexs (most of the rest) to process the code.
When selecting a compressor I would suggest finding something that will do it locally and is backed with good test suite so you can see what case are (and are not) handled correctly.

Is there a proper and wrong way to format CSS?

When I first started writing CSS, I was writing it in an expanded form
div.class {
margin: 10px 5px 3px;
border: 1px solid #333;
font-weight: bold;
}
.class .subclass {
text-align:right;
}
but now I find myself writing css like this: (Example from code I'm actually writing now)
.object1 {}
.scrollButton{width:44px;height:135px;}
.scrollButton img {padding:51px 0 0 23px;}
.object2 {width:165px;height:94px;margin:15px 0 0 23px;padding:15px 0 0 10px;background:#fff;}
.featuredObject .symbol{line-height:30px; padding-top:6px;}
.featuredObject .value {width:90px;}
.featuredObject .valueChange {padding:5px 0 0 0;}
.featuredObject img {position:absolute;margin:32px 0 0 107px;}
and I'm beginning to worry because a lot of the time I see the first form done in examples online, while I find the second form a lot easier for me to work with. It has a lower vertical height, so I can see all the classes at a glance with less scrolling, the tabulation of the hierarchy seems more apparent, and it looks more like code I'd write with javascript or html. Is this a valid way of doing code, or to keep with standards when putting it online should I use the vertical form instead?
Well, here is what say the most :)
summary:
css-tricks.com ran a poll. By a margin of roughly 3 to 1, most people preferred multi-line over single line css styles.
I personally prefer the first style. I like things that are easy to read and I don't mind scrolling. The dense nature of the second style slows down my reading, my ability to pick out the items that I'm interested in.
There certainly are trade offs to be considered with CSS due to the file size. CSS can be compressed. I find the size of CSS files to be the least of my worries with the sites I've built so far.
Ultimately, the important thing is that whichever style you choose to use is to be consistent. That consistency will make your life simpler when you have to update your CSS or when another developer has to update your CSS.
Indicating the hierarchy using indentation is not a bad idea. However, you should be careful that you don't fool yourself. In your example, you may be assuming that .scrollButton is always within .object1. But CSS doesn't obey that rule. If you used a .scrollButton class outside of .object1, it would still get the styles.
I dont know about you but I like the vertical mode during dev as it is far more easier to read for me.
However, in prod, you wanna compress your css to reduce payload and hence, the second style makes sense. Mostly, you would be using some CSS compressor to do this.
i like to write css in multi line. because this is easier to write and read. we can find error as early as possible and a look of view is nice with indentation . mostly when a designer work with css and gave to developer to develop site than developer can understand easily.
so i think multi line css is better way to work.
I personally find both of your examples hard to read, especially the second one.
Multi-line is easier to follow, and indentation can be misleading as CSS is not necessarily applied in that way. Your indentation may lead you to believe it is.
I prefer the basic tried and true method of multi-line, with reasonable/logical order:
div.class
{
margin: 10px 5px 3px;
border: 1px solid #333;
font-weight: bold;
}
.class
{
text-align: center;
margin-left: 10px;
}
.class .subclass
{
text-align:right;
}
Takes up a little more space and requires a little scrolling to take in, but is easy to follow. Those worried about optimization can always use CSS shrinking tools for production CSS files.
In the end as long as you are very consistent with your work and across a team (if applicable) then no answer is more correct.
I prefer the second style, but be aware that it's a style. In the same way that some people prefer
function (arg)
{
body();
}
to
function(arg){
body();
}
I don't get it, myself. The argument is "it's easier to read", and my response is consistently "... for you". As a note, I get the feeling that this is why so many examples use the more-whitespace version; it has the reputation (if not confirmed property) of being easier to read.
Pick the one you like and stick with it. If you have a team to cooperate with, try to get to consensus, or barring that, write some auto-formatting scripts and stay out of each other's way. It's not like it's terribly difficult to mechanically transform one into the other.
The style you write in is your choice(I prefer multi line) but as Rajat said you want to remove any extra whitespace after dev. Anytime you can reduce file size and payload you are doing your site and your visitors a favor.
I think it also depends on your editor. I use multi line formatting and condense every definition with Vim's folding (I set up folding marks to be { and }) so I get one tag/class/id per line, expandable when needed.
Using comments to identify "sections" I get a very clean look with minimal vertical scroll while maintaining the readability of multi line on expanded definitions.
I just want to point out that Textmate has an option that allows you to easily switch between these two styles by selecting an area and pressing Ctrl-Q/Ctrl-Alt-Q to expand/collapse. As a consequence I have come to find that I prefer my CSS collapsed unless I am writing or deep debugging a specific section. But, with the ability to easily switch between he two I see that both ways are useful for different circumstances.
I prefer multiline right up until we deploy. At that point I want it minified.
Perhaps, when you have multiple selectors and one rule, like this:
#header li a, #header li span {
display:inline-block;
}
So, I prefer to do:
#header li a,
#header li span {
display:inline-block;
}
I've always liked this style:
#something1 {
color : #ffffff;
background : #000000;
}
#something2 {
color : #000000;
background : #ffffff;
}
But yo answer your question: As long as it functions the same way, there is no "proper" or "best" way to format your code. Use a style your comfortable with.

Is there a reason CSS doesn't support applying styles from within styles?

In CSS2 and even in the upcoming CSS3, I can't find something that would be completely natural and time-saving - applying CSS styles from within other styles, rather than from HTML.
For example:
.awesome-image {
border: 1px #000 solid;
margin: 2px;
}
.super-awesome-image {
.alwesome-image; // or something like that - this is similar to a function call in a functional language
padding: 2px;
}
Oftentimes, one doesn't have access to generated HTML, so modifying CSS is the only choice.
This sort of inheritance support would make life a lot easier because we'd be able to treat CSS rules as "functions" and reuse the code rather than duplicate it.
Or am I missing something and CSS does support this (I've never seen it before?) or plans on supporting it? Enlighten me please.
Edit: Consider another example which shows that declaring .awesome-image, .super-awesome-image {common rules} is not elegant:
.border5 {
border-radius:5px;
-moz-border-radius:5px;
-webkit-border-radius:5px
}
I would much rather not pile up every other class that would want to have a border radius in the same definition. Alas, that's what needs to be done without functional support (I mentioned a lot of times there's only access to the CSS file and not the HTML itself).
In CSS, this is achieved as follows:
.super-awesome-image, .awesome-image {
border: 1px #000 solid;
margin: 2px;
}
.super-awesome-image {
padding: 2px;
}
Styles can be applied to multiple classes at once, which allows for easy inheritance.
There has been much debate as to whether CSS should be given functional programming techniques or layer inheritance, but this style of class inheritance will probably remain.
EDIT:
If you can generate styles with php, such inheritance should be quite doable.
Check out these scripts (which mostly deal with CSS variables, but may do more):
http://www.shauninman.com/archive/2005/08/05/css_variables
http://www.joesapt.net/2005/09/03/08.46.34
http://interfacelab.com/variables-in-css-via-php/
http://www.conditional-css.com/
It would make recursion possible (which would mean parsers would need to be able to recover from it)
Multiple rule-sets can use the same selector, so which one would apply? Or would all of them?
You can achieve what you want with:
<img … class="awesome-image super-awesome-image">
or
.awesome-image,
.super-awesome-image {
border: 1px #000 solid;
margin: 2px;
}
.super-awesome-image {
padding: 2px;
}
It kind of does support what you're suggesting, via the Cascade and inheritance. These are essential parts of CSS to understand, but they're sometimes a bit, er, idiosyncratic ...
I think the problem you mention is valid, but in those situations where the web programmer is completely separate from the web designer, it puts the onus on the initial project management to ensure both do what they're meant to. It's obviously a good philosophy to separate function and style, but there will always have to be some kind of link between the 2 and that is carried out by specifying the external CSS file(s). That's the reason it's important to define Id's and Class's carefully and always factor in some scope for change, i.e never make your CSS too general and always define ID's and Class's in the HTML for elements even when you're not styling them right now. It's a fine line to walk though between being pedantic and being careful, but then trying to think 6months/1year/5years ahead always would be ;)
This has always been my own personal approach.
I think "mixins" in LESS or SASS do exactly that.
As for why CSS itself doesn't do that, I don't know. First, I'd like to know why CSS doesn't give me a sane way to vertical align my content, or to shrink-fit a container (with floats), or to override overflow:hidden clipping for selected elements, or to do absolute positioning in relation to opposite edges, or ... and a lot of other things.
Your idea sounds nice, though.

CSS 'schema' how-to

How does one go about establishing a CSS 'schema', or hierarchy, of general element styles, nested element styles, and classed element styles. For a rank novice like me, the amount of information in stylesheets I view is completely overwhelming. What process does one follow in creating a well factored stylesheet or sheets, compared to inline style attributes?
I'm a big fan of naming my CSS classes by their contents or content types, for example a <ul> containing navigational "tabs" would have class="tabs". A header containing a date could be class="date" or an ordered list containing a top 10 list could have class="chart". Similarly, for IDs, one could give the page footer id="footer" or the logo of the website id="mainLogo". I find that it not only makes classes easy to remember but also encourages proper cascading of the CSS. Things like ol.chart {font-weight: bold; color: blue;} #footer ol.chart {color: green;} are quite readable and takes into account how CSS selectors gain weight by being more specific.
Proper indenting is also a great help. Your CSS is likely to grow quite a lot unless you want to refactor your HTML templates evertime you add a new section to your site or want to publish a new type of content. However hard you try you will inevitably have to add a few new rules (or exceptions) that you didn't anticipate in your original schema. Indeting will allow you to scan a large CSS file a lot quicker. My personal preference is to indent on how specific and/or nested the selector is, something like this:
ul.tabs {
list-style-type: none;
}
ul.tabs li {
float: left;
}
ul.tabs li img {
border: none;
}
That way the "parent" is always furthest to the left and so the text gets broken up into blocks by parent containers. I also like to split the stylesheet into a few sections; first comes all the selectors for HTML elements. I consider these so generic that they should come first really. Here I put "body { font-size: 77%; }" and "a { color: #FFCC00; }" etc. After that I would put selectors for the main framework parts of the page, for instance "ul#mainMenu { float: left; }" and "div#footer { height: 4em; }". Then on to common object classes, "td.price { text-align: right; }", finally followed by extra little bits like ".clear { clear: both; }". Now that's just how I like to do it - I'm sure there are better ways but it works for me.
Finally, a couple of tips:
Make best use of cascades and don't "overclass" stuff. If you give a <ul> class="textNav" then you can access its <li>s and their children without having to add any additional class assignments. ul.textNav li a:hover {}
Don't be afraid to use multiple classes on a single object. This is perfectly valid and very useful. You then have control of the CSS for groups of objects from more than one axis. Also giving the object an ID adds yet a third axis. For example:
<style>
div.box {
float: left;
border: 1px solid blue;
padding: 1em;
}
div.wide {
width: 15em;
}
div.narrow {
width: 8em;
}
div#oddOneOut {
float: right;
}
</style>
<div class="box wide">a wide box</div>
<div class="box narrow">a narrow box</div>
<div class="box wide" id="oddOneOut">an odd box</div>
Giving a class to your document <body> tag (or ID since there should only ever be one...) enables some nifty overrides for individual pages, like hilighting the menu item for the page you're currently on or getting rid of that redundant second sign-in form on the sign-in page, all using CSS only. "body.signIn div#mainMenu form.signIn { display: none; }"
I hope you find at least some of my ramblings useful and wish you the best with your projects!
There are a number of different things you can do to aid in the organisation of your CSS. For example:
Split your CSS up into multiple files. For example: have one file for layout, one for text, one for reset styles etc.
Comment your CSS code.
Why not add a table of contents?
Try using a CSS framework like 960.gs to get your started.
It's all down to personal taste really. But here are a few links that you might find useful:
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/08/18/7-principles-of-clean-and-optimized-css-code/
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/05/02/improving-code-readability-with-css-styleguides/
http://www.louddog.com/bloggity/2008/03/css-best-practices.php
http://natbat.net/2008/Sep/28/css-systems/
Think of the CSS as creating a 'toolkit' that the HTML can refer to. The following rules will help:
Make class names unambiguous. In most cases this means prefixing them in a predicatable way. For example, rather than left, use something like header_links_object2_left.
Use id rather than class only if you know there will only ever be one of an object on a page. Again, make the id unambiguous.
Consider side effects. Rules like margin and padding, float and clear, and so on can all have unexpected consequences on other elements.
If your stylesheet is to be used my several HTML coders, consider writing them a small, clear guide to how to write HTML to match your scheme. Keep it simple, or you'll bore them.
And as always, test it in multiple browsers, on multiple operating systems, on lots of different pages, and under any other unusual conditions you can think of.
Putting all of your CSS declarations in roughly the same order as they will land in the document hierarchy is generally a good thing. This makes it fairly easy for future readers to see what attributes will be inherited, since those classes will be higher up in the file.
Also, this is sort of orthogonal to your question, but if you are looking for a tool to help you read a CSS file and see how everything shakes out, I cannot recommend Firebug enough.
The best organizational advice I've ever received came from a presentation at An Event Apart.
Assuming you're keeping everything in a single stylesheet, there's basically five parts to it:
Reset rules (may be as simple as the
* {margin: 0; padding: 0} rule,
Eric Meyer's reset, or the YUI
reset)
Basic element styling; this
is the stuff like basic typography
for paragraphs, spacing for lists,
etc.
Universal classes; this section
for me generally contains things
like .error, .left (I'm only 80%
semantic), etc.
Universal
layout/IDs; #content, #header,
or whatever you've cut your page up
into.
Page-specific rules; if you
need to modify an existing style
just for one or a few pages, stick a
unique ID high up (body tag is
usually good) and toss your
overrides at the end of the document
I don't recommend using a CSS framework unless you need to mock something up in HTML fast. They're far too bloated, and I've never met one whose semantics made sense to me; it's much better practice to create your own "framework" as you figure out what code is shared by your projects over time.
Reading other people's code is a whole other issue, and with that I wish you the best of luck. There's some truly horrific CSS out there.
Cop-out line of the year: it depends.
How much do you need to be styling? Do you need to change the aspects of alomost every element, or is it only a few?
My favorite place to go for information like this is CSS Zen Garden & A List Apart.
There are two worlds:
The human editor perspective: Where CSS is most easily understand, when it has clear structure, good formatting, verbose names, structured into layout, color and typesetting...
The consumer perspective: The visitor is most happy if your site loades quickly, if it look perfect in his browser, so the css has to be small, in one file (to save further connections) and contain CSS hacks to support all browsers.
I recommend you to start with a CSS framework:
Blueprint if you like smaller things
or YAML for a big and functional one
There is also a list of CSS Frameworks...
And then bring it in shape (for the browser) with a CSS Optimizer (p.e. CSS Form.&Opti.)
You can measure the Results (unpotimized <-> optimized) with YSlow.
A few more tips for keeping organized:
Within each declaration, adopt an order of attributes that you stick to. For example, I usually list margins, padding, height, width, border, fonts, display/float/other, in that order, allowing for easier readability in my next tip
Write your CSS like you would any other code: indent! It's easy to scan a CSS file for high level elements and then drill down rather than simply going by source order of your HTML.
Semantic HTML with good class names can help a lot with remembering what styles apply to which elements.

Resources