I thought that I understand id's vs classes in css documents. As far as I know there should be only one instance of id element in html document and many class elements. Now I'm looking on Microsoft driven Site.css template which is generated on every new mvc3 project and I see that there is .page element not #page ? Am I missing something here ?
It's become common to only use ids for javascript, and only to use classes for CSS.
There a number of reasons behind this:
Selecting an ID using JS is very fast
ID have a higher specificity than a class
It's a convenient way to split JS and CSS up
As an example:
<a class='btn btn-primary' id='alert' href='#'>Click Me</a>
Would be a typical use, where the btn and btn-primary classes are used for CSS, but the alert id is going to be used in JS.
That means that the link can be restyled without losing the JS link, and can have it's behaviour changed without changing its styling.
It's easier to maintain a nice cascade when using classes. Id's are a really specific way of linking style to your document. Also, at the moment you might have only one element so using id might seem the way to go but what if in the near future you are switching to two.
CSS Specifity
Developers generally use #id if they are looking for applying some javascript to that element, and ID should be unique, where as .whatever is a class which you can use it multiple times..
As you said
Microsoft may be using .page because it must be applying to multiple things, so it's simply not using #page, it doesn't really make a difference, ya but as far as the specifity goes, #id selector has higher precedence than .class
Don't know the Microsoft driven Site.css template at all; but quite frankly I wouldn't take any advice concerning CSS from them: their browser has consistently been the worst of all major browsers in terms of adopting international standards in relation to styling.
There should only be one id of any particular item on a given page; but more than one will still almost certainly work... for styling at least (try it with scripting :p).
Hell, I've just put in the microsoft homepage into the w3c
html validator: 28 Errors, 581 warning(s)
and the w3c CSS validator
We found the following errors (68)
Although arguably many CSS errors may be generated by quite acceptable hacks designed to fix problems in badly designed browsers... principally Microsoft's!
Even so, I'm intrigued about this Microsoft driven Site.css template: any chance you could post a link?
Just as an aditional note: ID in CSS is always given higher priority than class, regardless of order.
Related
Is there any harm if custom tags are used and created based on one's choice?
like the one below
<hello>hi there!</hello>
I tried using CSS
hello{
color:red;font-family:arial;
}
The above code works
I have used the above and also can add CSS. is there any harm of doing this, or the CSS features these won't support?
This is purely out of curiosity so don't suggest CSS edits or solutions please.
Why you can't make up elements
It is not valid HTML. Therefore how it behaves will be unpredictable.
It may work in some browsers, currently, but if any of your users visit your site on a different browser, they may get a totally different experience. Further to that, support could be dropped, or change at any time without warning.
Other options for custom elements
It is actually possible to define your own Document Type Definition (DTD), however that too is not a good idea.
Your best bet is to either stick with normal, well-supported HTML elements (see here for list of valid elements), or to use a web component framework, such as Vue, Angular or React, for custom elements/ components.
Don't forget, that you can add the class attribute (as well as others) to any element for styling, so for your use-case, there isn't any need to have additional elements.
Given current HTML5 specs that allows creating custom HTML elements (as long as their name contains a dash), and the fact that Web Components seem to be a feature that's here to stay, I'd like to know why is creating your own custom HTML elements frowned upon?
Note, that I'm not asking whether to use Web Components - which are still a moving target, and even with great polyfills like Polymer might not be ready for production yet. I'm asking about creating your own custom HTML tags and styling them, without attaching any JS APIs to them.
Short answer: I haven't heard any very compelling reasons to avoid them.
However, here are some recurring arguments I've heard made:
Doesn't work in old IE (just document.createElement("my-tag"); should fix that).
Global namespace clashes (same applies to class names, and custom elements in general).
CSS selector performance (doh, this is just about the last thing you should worry about).
Separation of functionality, meaning and presentation. This is actually the only argument I've heard that IMHO has any valid basis to it. You're of course better off with semantic HTML (search engines and all that), but if you were going to use a div for it otherwise, I don't see why you couldn't use a custom tag instead.
One of the arguments against custom tags is their implied incompatibility with screen readers. This issue can be resolved with WAI-ARIA attributes.
There exists an issue in IE11, which breaks table layout if a custom element without display property is inserted inside a table cell. Check the plunker code. Therefore, it's the safest to declare all new elements explicitly, for example like so:
new-element {
display: block;
}
I'm building my first website for an internship. My instructors always told me to never embed any styles on my html page.Now that I'm actually creating a site I find it annoying that, if I want to change the color of my font for a span tag - I have to I.D. it and reference it in a css file. Is there some other reason then organizational purposes for using CSS? Would embedding a single style be such a convention breaker? Thanks for reading this and I'd appreciate any feedback.
There are a couple of reasons.
Times when you want to change the style of a single element on a single page should be exceedingly rare, so it shouldn't be such a hardship. Any other time, it is going to be more efficient (from an HTTP caching perspective) and easier to maintain (from a separation of style and structure perspective) to externalize the style information.
Since there is a good chance that you'll want to style it differently for different media (e.g. screen and print), you'll need a proper stylesheet for that too.
If you embedd a style to several HTML pages, and want to change it later, you have to go file by file changing it. That is one good enough reason for me.
The key word here is maintainability. Organized code is maintainable code! It is far better to add an id to a tag and reference it in the global css file than to do it inline, because if you want to change that style later, you know where to find it, and you only have to change it in one place.
The reason you want to offload the CSS into a different file is so the browser can cache it. Otherwise, the browser has to load all the CSS as well as all the markup on every page. If you keep it in a separate file, the browser only has to load the CSS once.
The basic argument for this is that HTML's purpose is to provide structure while CSS's job is to provide styling, by embedding CSS in HTML you're breaking this basic rule. Plus, you'll have a tough time in maintaining pages.
Ideally, a design should be consistent enough that you can use generic rules for such situations. If you want to emphasize something, then <em> or <strong> is likely the way to go. After styling your <em> or <strong>, you can easily add the same emphasis to other areas of the site.
It's not simply about performance or style, it's also about consistency and ease of maintenance.
Find the similar elements in your design and mark them up similarly. It's as easy as that.
Even if it's "just 1" you should still do it because it helps you get in the habit of it.
embedded css has the following problems:-
1. It has browser compatibility problem. Example Ie has problem understanding inbuilt styling.
2. If you want to use the same css style again , it is better to have a class for it.
Perhaps this question has been asked elsewhere, but I'm unable to find it. With HTML5 and CSS3 modules inching closer, I'm getting interested in a discussion about the way we write CSS.
Something like this where selection is done via element order and pseudo-classes is particularly fascinating. The big advantage to this method seems to be complete modularization of HTML and CSS to make tweaks and redesigns simpler.
At the same time, semantic IDs and classes seem advantageous for sundry reasons. Particularly, direct linking, JS targeting, and shorter CSS selectors. Also, it seems selector length might be an issue. For instance, I just wrote the following, which would be admittedly easier using some semantic HTML5 elements:
body>div:nth-child(2)>div:nth-child(2)>ul:nth-child(2)>li:last-child
So what say you, Stack Overflow? Is the future of CSS writing focused on element order and pseudo-classes? Or are IDs and classes and the current ways here to stay?
(I'm well aware the IDs and classes have their place, although I am interested to hear more ways you think they'll continue to be necessary. I don't want to misrepresent this or frame it as "Are pseudo-classes ID killers?" The discussion I'm interested in is bigger-picture and the ways writing CSS is changing.)
I think that's an unreadable abomination which will mysteriously stop working when the HTML changes.
Order-based selectors are completely non-self-documenting.
If someone else takes over the project, and the HTML changes, he will have no idea what the selector is supposed to select, and will be hard-pressed to fix it correctly.
This is especially important if any part of the HTML is automatically generated.
As someone who is beginning to make a transition from table based design to full CSS I'm wondering if using the style attribute to make adjustments to elements is considered "cheating" and if absolutely ALL presentation should be strictly in the style sheet?
See also:
A question of style - approaches to styling and stylesheets
There are cases where you know for sure that all you want to do is tweak the style of this one specific element, and nothing else.
In those cases you can happily use an inline style attribute. But then, at some point in the future, you'll realise that in fact you need to apply the same style to something else, and you'll realise you were wrong.
Been there, done that. 8-)
I feel there's an aspect that has not been touched upon here: the distinction between hand-edited HTML snippets and generated HTML snippets.
For human editing, it's probably better and easier to maintain to have the styles in a file.
However
As soon as you start generating HTML elements, with server-side scripts or with some kind of JavaScript, be sure to make all styles required for basic functionality inline!
For example, you wrote some kind of JavaScript library that generates tooltips. Now, you will inject DIVs into your page, that will need some styles. For example, position: absolute and, initially, display:none. You may be tempted to give these elements the class .popup and require that this class has the correct definitions in some CSS file. After all, styles should be specified in the CSS file, right?
You will make your JavaScript library very annoying to reuse, because you can no longer simply copy and invoke one .js file and be done with it. Instead, you will have to copy the .js file, but also have to make sure that all styles required by the script are defined in your CSS file, and you have to go hunting for those, and make sure their names don't conflict with classes you already have.
For maximum ease of use, just go ahead and set the required styles directly on the element as you create it. For styles that are purely for aesthetical purposes, such as background-color, font-size and such, you can still attach a class, to give the consumer of your script an easy way to change the appearance of your script elements, but don't require it!
You can use the style attribute, but the point of using CSS is that you make a change in a single file, and it affects the entire site. Try to avoid it as much as possible (old habits die hard)
It's not maintainable. All of us have done it. What you're best to do is put every adjustment into a style. Let me teach you something most developers do not know about CSS ... you can use N styles at a time.
For example, imagine you have a great style for colorized divs called someDIVStyle:
.someDIVStlye
{
background-color: yellow;
...
}
You want to use it, but just want to adjust the background-color to blue. Many people would copy/paste it and then make a new style with the change. However, simple create a style like this:
.blueBackground
{
background-color: blue;
}
Apply it as such:
<div class="someDIVStyle blueBackground">...
The style furthest to the right always overrides the properties of the styles preceding it. You can use a number of styles at once to meet your needs.
I agree with some other posters that it is best to keep the style information in the stylesheet. CSS tends to get complicated quickly, and it is nice to have that information in one place (rather than having to jump back and forth from HTML to stylesheet to see what styles are being used).
A little off-topic tip: Pressing F12 in IE8 brings up a great tool that lets you inspect the styles of elements in web pages you're browsing. In Firefox, FireBug does the same thing. Those kinds of tools are lifesavers if you want to know how a style change will affect an element.
It's a very "personal" question, to me the word "ALL" is a very strong word. You should do your best to have most of the styling in your css. but you can use style occetionally if it makes your life easier.
Generally it is best to have styles on the style sheet especially if it will be used multiple times, but using the style attribute is definitely not "cheating". A quick look through the stackoverflow source shows many examples of this.
Yes, it's kind of cheating, but it's up to you if you want to cheat a little. :)
The fundamental idea of having the styles in a style sheet is to separate the content from the layout. If you use the style attribute you are still mixing layout within the content.
However It's not that terrible, as you can quite easily move the style into a class. It's quite handy during development to be able to set a style on a specific element so easily without having to make up a class name and worry how the style will cascade.
I sometimes let the style attribute go through in the production code, if it's something that is specific for just one page, and if it's doubtful that it will be there for long. Occationally just because I am pressed for time, and it can be cleaned up later on...
So, even if you use a style attribute sometimes, you should still have the ambition that all the styles should be in a style sheet. In the long run it makes the code easier to maintain.
As others have said, in general, no.
However, there are cases where it makes perfect sense. For example, today I had to load an random background image into a div, from a directory with an unknown # of files. Basically, the client can drop files into that folder and they'll show up in the random background image rotation.
To me, this was a clear reason to dynamically build up the style tag on the div.
In addition, if you're using, for example, the .net framework with webforms and built-in controls then you'll see inline styles used anyway!
There can be very good reasons to put style information in a specific page.
For example, if you want to have a different header background on every page (travel agencies...), it is far easier to put that style information in that specific element (better, in the head of the document...) than to give that element a different class on every page and define all those classes in an external style-sheet.
The style attribute does have one important use: setting style programmatically. While the DOM includes methods to manipulate style sheets, support for them is still spotty and they're a bit heavyweight for many tasks, such as hiding and showing elements.
Yes, the style attribute is frowned upon in general. Since you're moving to the CSS method from table-based, I'd strongly recommend that you avoid inline styles. As a previous poster pointed out: bad habits are hard to break and getting into the habit of using inline styles for their temporary convenience is a mistake. You might as well go back to using the font tag. There's really no difference.
Having said that, there are occasions where it makes sense to use a simple inline style, but first develop the habit of using stylesheets. Only when you're comfortable with putting everything in a stylesheet should you start looking at shortcuts.
I think that's the general consensus of everyone who posted an answer