Talk:CSS/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Spam links to http://december.com removed

User:Yurik has recently made changes to all the code examples in this article, which on the face of it look quite nice. On the other hand, in doing so s/he has also magically created dozens of hyperlinks to a web site at http://december.com.

I propose that, whether or not that was the main purpose of the colour-scheming, it should be reverted asap, and so have done so. If it were possible to have the coloured syntax highlighting without the commercial spam, then I'd be happy with it. Equally, if the links were to the relevant articles with WP, or even to the non-commercial international standards pages at http://w3.org. --Nigelj 17:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Being a dev of mediawiki, i obviously did not want any spam links :). This is an unneeded feature of the syntax highlighting plugin, and we should address it for the entire wiki, rather than removing it here. Once the main plugin settings are fixed, all such links will disappear. In the mean time, i will put it back as its visual benefits clearly outweigh the almost invisible junk links that will be soon removed. --Yurik 18:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Bug entered at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9955. --Yurik 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Justify

Please, add to CSS-file "Justify" for the all texts. You must to see not have to think.)) A Wiki isn't place of text-garbages. We can to do nice for the readers.

Column (typography)

Would anyone be interested in expanding and sourcing content for Column (typography), specifically the section on web layout? Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

CSS commands list

There should be at least an external link to a list of all (or most) CSS commands. Please add it. --DorTheScripter 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several such links in the article already. ¦ Reisio 04:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Where? AirplaneProRadio 19:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The spec itself? mabdul 19:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Reworking

Doing quite a bit of work on this article right now. Main thing is trying to refocus it away from teaching people the language. Chris Cunningham 12:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see no discussion and no consensus here. Apart from your confusing use of two names (Thumperward or Chris Cunningham depending whether you are editing or discussing your own edits) and your instruction to Czert to "Feel free to remove anything you like from it", I wonder just why you have decided single-handedly to dumb down the article in this way. It is not in order to add more referenced material: on 16 July there were eight references, now there are nine. What you have done is remove all the carefully chosen examples that demystified CSS scripting, showing its capabilities and its shortcomings and you did this with helpful edit summaries like, "more example killing", mostly during the single day 18th July.
If you don't have some pretty good justifications for each major deletion, backed up with a WP policy that says that technical articles should not include examples, I believe that many of these should be reverted back in. --Nigelj 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not meant to be a how-to reference, and this was little but. I'm trying to get the article into a state where a reader who was looking to find out what CSS was and what it is used for can comfortably read it and go away informed, rather than aiming the article at would-be Web authors who need to grep for example code. The "referenced material", a set of tutorials, was much of the same. if you feel that this information was of more use here than the dozen or so introductory guides to CSS it was mostly taken from, then please help the Wikibooks project out by taking the advice of template:howto and moving it over there. As for my user name, I'd rather tag my personal comment with my real name, and I don't feel this is a massive mental burden on my fellow Wikipedians. Chris Cunningham 20:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree that removing the examples makes this a less useful article. It is good for the introduction to say what CSS is, and what it is used for, but examples are appropriate not to teach the language, but to help give a technical understanding. Saying that CSS is used to encode web style is not useful for people who would like to understand how it works internally. Without the examples, readers will only gain a superfluous understanding of the language, rather than a technical understanding, which is appropriate to Wikipedia.
If you are unhappy with your username, perhaps you should change it. Your inconsistancy makes it impossible to tell that the editor and the commenter are the same person without editing. 206.196.177.118 20:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The link can be found by hovering over my signature. I've been mulling over a full user name change, but that's beside the point of this discussion. I am not opposed to the idea of including examples in the article. What I am opposed to is Nigelj's assertion that these "major deletions" which "dumb down the article" should be "reverted back in". I feel that those who wish to add examples would be better off starting again rather than by restoring poorly-written content in a blanket fashion. Chris Cunningham 10:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


A first-time reader's two cents: I would really appreciate having as many examples as possible. I think for many people, specific examples help them to learn a concept. I like to see examples from which I can then generalize. I understand things much more quickly this way. Thanks. --Paul Gentry (not logged in) 198.81.125.18 15:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, another first time reader's two cents: I would enjoy as many examples as possible too. I came to the wiki to learn about how I could apply CSS, and some examples of it. I use wikipedia on many different topics, this is actually the first one I feel didn't really give me a good understanding. Now you can criticize me if you like...but I'm a pretty good example of your audience. It sounds like the examples would have helped me grasp it a bit more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.128.126 (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Me, three. I'm planning a comprehensive list of CSS properties, and how the relate to HTML. If it gets removed too many times, I'll move it to my own website, but I know of no rule saying Wikipedia should not be a reference source.
Stop me, though, if there actually is such a rule. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd say thats something for Wikibooks, not Wikipedia itself. Would be nice to actually get infos how to link to a CSS file within a HTML document, tho. --Darth NormaN (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there a link to Wikibooks? And can we have a few examples here in addition to such a link? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Complicated Precedence Rules as a Limitation?

I can't see how precedence rules can be a limitation just because they are complicated. Some mechanisms need to be complicated in order to be effective. --Czert 11:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That whole section needs entirely redone using some actual sources. Feel free to remove anything you like from it. Chris Cunningham 12:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Limitations

I changed the formatting of the first two items to match the rest of the items in the section. I removed a third item because it did not seem to be a limitation of CSS:

  • Although the CSS standards have been in place for years, websites using CSS layout have been slow to catch on with many webmasters who have not found the need (or desire) to update their sites with the latest standards.

—Ryan 09:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this section necessary at all? From my point of view, it is highly subjective while also (at least partially) being addressed by current work on CSS. It barely seems to help, instead it might mislead people ("look CSS is so limited"). (Several sub topics like for example print styles could probably use some attention instead.) --K. 09:00, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I think the section is relevant, but it's very true that current work is addressing most of these issues. I would like to add more information on this, but I'm uncertain how to do it. Lots of Wikipedia sections on "Criticism" read like the stalemate of an edit war, and I'd like to avoid that. Here's the gist of what I want to add:
Poor controls for flexible layouts
Flexbox and Grid Layout addresses this in a fundamental way. [1] [2] (Admittedly, Grid is a bit further out and may not merit mention.) The claim about WYSIWYG editors being held back should really have been cited by the original author, but he/she could be thinking of BlueGriffon or some Adobe product.
Selectors are unable to ascend
:matches() in Selectors 4 addresses most uses. [3] (Today's draft doesn't because it is limited to compound selectors, but there's a proposed change to let it refer to any selector.)
Vertical control limitations
Flexbox addresses this too.
Absence of expressions
calc() is already implemented in Firefox and IE 9, though not yet formally standardized. [4]
Lack of column declaration
With the multicol spec maturing and implemented in all major browsers as of IE 10, this is becoming increasingly outdated as criticism. I suppose it could be kept until formal standardization or IE 10's release. [5]
Cannot explicitly declare new scope independently of position
Nothing new here, though it is discussed from time to time.
Pseudo-class dynamic behavior not controllable
Nothing new. I confess I've never heard of this one. I doubt it's within the scope of CSS to prevent this kind of thing, since JavaScript always can work around any limitations we set.

—Leif Arne Storset 09:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

New Resource

The book "Professional CSS, Cascading Style Sheets for Web Design" written by Christopher Schmitt, Mark Trammell, Ethan Marcotte, Dunstan Orchard and Todd Dominey is a wonderful book authored by some of the masters. Do you think I could possibly add it to the CSS resources list? You can check it's web site out at http://www.wrox.com/WileyCDA/WroxTitle/productCd-0764588338.html.

Pcboy 21:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Limitations

  • Complexity

For larger sites, style sheets can grow to become extremely long and complex making editing and overall site management somewhat more difficult and tedious than if a basic table layout were used.

As complex and large as Wikipedia's website, it's mostly CSS layout. Table layout does not make it any easier to manage.

Wordhunter 17:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wordhunter is quite right. I designed my first few websites using table layouts, and I can quite assure that CSS stylesheets, when properly managed, can drastically ease the managing process. And if your stylesheets do get unmanageably long, split the code up over two external documents. Nothing complex about it. :-) Pcboy 16:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Removed. Thanks for catching this. Chris Cunningham 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Float containment

... Generally, either "position: relative" or "overflow: hidden"[21] solves this. ...

This is incorrect, position:relative has no effect on float containment or float clearing (which are really different things). All values of overflow, excepting the default value, visible and position:absolute will contain floats. A later (in flow) element or pseudo element with the clear property can be used to force a float container to surround the float by ensuring it surrounds the cleared element. Fwiw, position:relative can be used to correct stacking issues in older versions of internet explorer (pre 7) which can affect the display of floats. Those same older versions of internet explorer can also contain floats via the proprietory "hasLayout" feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.253.113 (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Poor controls for flexible layouts

While new additions to CSS3 provide a stronger, more robust feature-set for layout, CSS is still at heart a styling language (for fonts, colours, borders and other decoration), not a layout language (for blocks with positions, sizes, margins, and so on). These limitations mean that creating fluid layouts generally requires hand-coding of CSS, and has held back the development of a standards-based WYSIWYG editor.

This is ill-informed and misleading, there are thousands of sophisticated fluid layouts created in pure CSS on the Web. All professional web designers code CSS "by hand", so the lack of WYSIWYG tools is irrelevant. The CSS spec includes a large number of layout rules (position, width, height, margin, padding, float, display, etc.), so the first sentence is wrong too. This point should be removed. Rssaddict (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The statement "CSS is still at heart a styling language (for fonts, colours, borders and other decoration), not a layout language (for blocks with positions, sizes, margins, and so on)." could be rewritten as "CSS is still at heart a styling language and it's controls for styling (fonts, colours, borders and other decoration) are more flexible than its controls for layout (for blocks with positions, sizes, margins, and so on).". This would remove the implication that CSS has no layout controls from the original. The statement "These limitations mean that creating fluid layouts generally requires hand-coding of CSS" is true and accurate and I don't see why it should be removed. That it has "has held back the development of a standards-based WYSIWYG editor" is a statement that needs further evidence. Atetlaw (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Cascading

The article says "CSS style information can be either attached as a separate document or embedded in the HTML document," but there is nothing here about the relative priority given to the different places where style information can be attached. That is, there is really nothing here about the cascading aspect of Cascading Style Sheets.

For example, http://www.htmlite.com/CSS001b.php says "Any embedded CSS command will over-ride an external CSS command of the same tag," but I know there are other rules besides that, and I also don't think that site looks like a citable source.

If I had the right sources to cite offhand, I'd write something, but as it happens I came here hoping to look it up. My guess is that someone involved in working on this page knows and could easily add this. - Jmabel | Talk 19:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Eric A. Meyer's book CSS: The Definitive Guide (ISBN: 978-0-596-52733-4) has a chapter called "Structure and the Cascade" which describes the cascading behaviour of CSS quite well. TheCycoONE (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Useless sentence?

I'm a first-time reader of this article, attempting to learn something about CSS, and as such, I find the following sentence in the Syntax section to be practically meaningless:

"A pseudo-class selects entire elements, such as :link or :visited, whereas a pseudo-element makes a selection that may consist of partial elements, such as :first-line or :first-letter."

I re-read this sentence 5 times to make sure that I wasn't just missing something. I'm not sure what is meant by "entire element" vs. "partial element" and this is not explained in the article above this sentence. Perhaps it was explained in some prior version. I think an example in the Syntax section would help out HUGELY (or at the least, a BNF version of the syntax, although the lay-person would probably not understand that). I noticed on this discussion page that some examples have been removed from this page. If there was one here, please put it back in! Examples are enormously helpful for understanding the topic. Remember, if you're an expert on a topic, that most likely impedes your ability to decide what is useful for the first-time reader (and therefore, the material that should appear at the beginning of the article). Thanks. -- Paul Gentry (not logged in)198.81.125.18 15:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to add in an example, however I'd need to seriously sandbox it as I'm pretty unfamiliar with writing code in a wiki. The example I'm thinking of is, use an anchor getting a colour change for the "entire element" pseudoclass, and the first-word of a paragraph getting a colour change rather than the entire paragraph for the "partial element" one. 80.101.162.155 (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

General style and tone

Lack of basics

What program is used to create a file with css extension? Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Any text editor. CSS files are just plaintext files, with a .css file extension, so no need for any sort of specialised program.81.68.90.181 (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

New Resources

Would you be willing to add http://www.learn-css-tutorial.com to your list of Resources? You have a great set of resources on your site and I know you will be very impressed with our free tutorial, written by us.Jthurber (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


Just added CSS Tutorial - not in-depth but comprehensive and concise, e.g. a good cheat-sheet for developers of templates. Also has "try it out" pages. N.B. I am not affiliated with w3schools.com in any way, aand I've been using it as a cheat sheet for years. Philcha (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is CSS a programming language?

The Wikibook about CSS is called 'CSS Programming', but I really don't think CSS is a language. Does it "define and manipulate data structures or control the flow of execution"[6]? This article doesn't really clarify it, and although I'm not sure that it really needs to, it seems that there might be some confusion out there. Should something be added to the article? —Sam Wilson (Australia) (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a programming language, but it is a style sheet language, a genre of computer language that simply styles and wires visual content such as text and images together. They're also trying to add more capabilities to CSS that were previously carried out by scripting languages (especially JavaScript) and older markup languages (like Netscape-era proprietary HTML tags such as <blink></blink>), including animation. However, the animation capability that they're adding to CSS is dependent to an extent on the :hover tag (where you move your mouse over the element), which makes it pseudo-executable, but not dynamically manipulative of data like scripting and programming languages. The better term would be "CSS Styling", IMO. --Toussaint (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

images! examples!

An article about a visual topic without examples and images? This way, the reader will not easily understand it. -- JakobVoss (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have tried creating images and examples for this article in the past, only to have them unceremoniously removed in edits like this. I haven't really bothered to try to help here much since. Not much point in putting in the effort, I felt. --Nigelj (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

error in intro

"but the language can be applied to any kind of XML document, including SVG and XUL." should say "but the language can be applied to any kind of SGML based document, including XML, SVG, and XUL."-198.97.67.58 (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Especially since HMTL is not "an XML language". 80.101.162.155 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

CSS signatures

im not sure this deserves its own article yet , but it may need to be here, CSS signatures are a way for a person to change the look of CSS signatures enabled websites that have the address of the website with - instead of . as the Id of the body tag, so a user enabled style sheet can target the individual page without effecting other sites styles. discussion that explains css signatures --Machinedragon (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Related propose move

Propose move Internet Explorer box model bug to CSS box model problem (Discuss here: Talk:Internet Explorer box model bug#Requested move 2) --Voidvector (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Vertical control limitations 'clarrification'

Well I'm not sure what the original author meant when they entered that, but you can vertically align by e.g a fixed amount by using "position:fixed;bottom:0px;" (IE renders it differently horizontally, but the vertical alignment works). I think adding it would be against WP:NOT (not a textbook..) though?
You can also vertically align elements by forcing them to float over others, it's a common technique used on websites which have partially dynamic lists for navigation... -- 203.171.195.113 (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, no. Think of all the easy ways you can horizontally align something. Align does not mean "only on one side". You can center elements horizontally, even if their container doens't have a fixed width... or, the centered element will shift naturally as its container shrinks or grows. To do so vertically requires plenty of junk HTML (HTML who is added purely for visual effect). This is true even if you're using display: table on the container: display: table in most browsers still needs a display: table-cell and sometimes also a display: table-row element. That's two extra elements you're adding purely for visual styling purposes. Absolutely positioning something to the bottom of something can put an element at the bottom... so let's see you try to absolutely position an element in the middle, when you don't know the height of the element and you don't know the height of the container AND you need to keep your positioned element in the document flow. No, CSS seriously botched vertical alignment of block elements. It *should* have been done the same way horizontal alignment was done. It is certainly a limitation of CSS in the eyes of anyone who designs web pages. 80.101.162.155 (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe the widely unsupported rules the article mentions refer to the W3C flexible box model draft. The flexible box model is supported in the most modern browsers requires a browser prefix since the spec is still a working draft. Johnswrenn (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Caching

Limitations --> Lack of Variables and Advantages --> Bandwidth disagree with each other. ~ 69.91.164.85 (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think they did. I think some contributor had got bogged down in detail about using PHP to generate CSS in two different ways, and then in wondering if PHP's server-side caching of the resulting document would kick in properly in one case (using 'require'), or the browser's client-side caching would help in the other (when using @include). At this level, in a non-how-to, overview article about all of CSS, we really don't care! Suffice to note that any server-side technology could help with the Lack of Variables limitation, if used correctly. So I've simplified the point in the article. Even mentioning PHP is probably still too specific, though. Thanks for pointing it out, 69.91.164.85: it wasn't at all clear as it was. --Nigelj (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"One block declaration cannot explicitly inherit from another" incorrect?

Limitations section says "One block declaration cannot explicitly inherit from another".

If I have rules: 

 .class1 {border:thick;}
 .class2 {color:red}

I can make class2 inherit class1 rules: 

 .class1,.class2 {border:thick;}
 .class2 {color:red}  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.217.36 (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I never understood that "limitation" as explained. There are several ways to pass style from one place to others - as the example above and by using class="class1 class2" in the HTML. Then there is the cascade itself. Then we have the fact that CSS defines the word 'inheritance' in its own way as in color: inherit. The reference given pointed us to the CSS2 recommendation section 6.4.1 Cascading order, which did not mention inheritance at all. So I removed the point. So confusing as to be meaningless; WP:OR, I think. There's lots of other similar guff in the limitations section, especially if you start to read the <!-- comments --> too. --Nigelj (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

External link to Compatibility tables for features in HTML5, CSS3, SVG and other upcoming web technologies

I would like to add an external link to tables of browser compatibility with upcoming standards support Darxus (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We have a page for that here. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it 'style sheet' or 'stylesheet'?

Many sites seem to use one or the other? EG: WordPress uses 'stylesheet', whereas W3 uses 'style sheet'? Which version is the more 'accepted'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.124.80.74 (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What? Of course it's relevant, he raises a good point. Both "style sheet" and "stylesheet" are used without a thought in the article with no consistency. --59.100.106.6 (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
See page title, its "Style Sheet". so says the w3c --Darth NormaN (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
...you mean this W3C? They actually use "stylesheet" more than they use "style sheet". This is akin to talk:web page#Capitalizing_.22web.22. By all means use one or the other as consistently as possible, but it doesn't matter which one it is (save for the title). ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, one possible solution to this problem is simply to add a short paragraph saying, “In this article, we use [preferred spelling]. However, the spellings (“stylesheet” and “style sheet”) both appear to be used all over the web with little consistency; even the W3C uses both spellings and does not officially prescribe one over the other…” —Zearin 12:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No... you might just as well transclude Compound (linguistics) in its entirety instead. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Html series template

hi, can anyone tell me why the 'Html series' template made it into this article? It is not needed imo. --Darth NormaN (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) is a style sheet language used to describe the presentation (that is, the look and formatting) of a document written in a markup language. Its most common application is to style web pages written in HTML" ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

and that alone justifies the template whose content is only 10% relevant to the actual article? a link to html would be enough. --84.180.175.17 (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"HTML" occurs in twenty-nine different places in this article (excluding the template). The vast majority of CSS use is dependent on HTML. ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-colon is not required

A style sheet consists of a list of rules. Each rule or rule-set consists of one or more selectors and a declaration block. A declaration-block consists of a list of declarations in braces. Each declaration itself consists of a property, a colon (:), a value, then a semi-colon (;).[1]

This is from the page. However, resource [1] actually says that a semi-colon is not required if it is closed off with a closing bracket. Someone please confirm this and edit the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.68.23.58 (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

a semi-colon is not required if it ends the last declaration. otherwise it is! so the default rule is: "write a semi-colon at the end of a declaration". by the way, it is always better to add a semi-colon than to forget one. --Darth NormaN (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Examples

Was anyone planning on explaining what was "poor" about the examples I entered? If not, I'll put them back next week. Thanks! --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it began with, "In a web page, declarations are enclosed in <style> ... </style> tags." While 'declarations' is technically the correct term for what you gave, what goes between style tags are CSS 'rules' that include selectors as well as declarations, to say what they should be applied to. Also, just saying that CSS belongs in style tags is misleading as the other important places where CSS declarations are used is in style="" attributes in other HTML elements, and of course, in separate, linked style sheets, which is far more common and recommended for a number of reasons. The second sentence was, "Common formatting elements include:" and what follows are not elements, but as you said earlier, declarations, which don't go as shown between style tags. Have a look at this old version and see if there is anything there that you think might provide a basis for something new? --Nigelj (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I think CSS framework really should be a section of Cascading Style Sheets. Comments and thoughts below please.--M4gnum0n (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree, although it should amount to little more than a sentence or two (and that with at least one WP:RS citation). We should lose the WP:SPAM lists too. --Nigelj (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

New external link: CSS 3 new properties and features

I think that the article at http://www.undisciplinedbytes.com/2009/12/css-3-one-more-step-in-the-evolution-of-the-web/ explains reasonably well the advantages CSS 3 brings over its predecessor. I believe it would be a good idea to include this article under "CSS 3 new properties and features". Should it be included? Olivermezquita (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Oliver Mezquita. Dec 1st, 2009.

No. We already have Comparison of layout engines (Cascading Style Sheets), and inclusion of your article verbatim would tread somewhat upon WP:SOAP. ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Another link: http://www.css3.info/ Chris361 (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Media Types

Something should be added to this article about CSS media types (screen, print, etc). 209.216.208.251 (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Improve this phrase: "that is, the look and formatting"

To my thinking "look and formatting" is redundant, because "formatting" is a kind of "look". Perhaps a better phrase would be "visual appearance" ... or simply "appearance" (because "visual appearance" is also redundant).

Karl gregory jones (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, going through the spec headings, we would need something like "the layout, formatting, typography, colouring and other visual effects" just for visual (print and screen) CSS. then there are all the equivalents for audio presentation... I guess that's all covered by 'presentation semantics', but if we want to explain what that means in brackets, it's hard. --Nigelj (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Relation to other languages and broader view

The relation to other languages but (X)HTML is not covered by the article. It's only mentioned that CSS can be used in SVG and XUL but nothing more. Moreover CSS and XSL-FO influenced each other and share some concepts - this is also missing in the article. In summary the view on CSS in this article is very limited. -- JakobVoss (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You have to go back some way, but we used to have something about CSS and plain XML[7]. --Nigelj (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

'Positioning' section

Kompromissis (talk · contribs) spent some time on the 18th and 19th October creating a new section. I have today done a widesweeping tidy up of that section, clarifying the English, the structure and the style of the material in accord with the 2.1. Recommendation. I like it, but I am worried about its place here. It is now a fair summary of most of section 9 of the spec, 'Visual formatting model', except for z-index and bidirectional text. Of course there is much more to the complete document, and the question arises, why pick out this section alone for summary? The main section headings that could stand summarising in this way are

  2. Syntax and basic data types
  3. Selectors
  4. Assigning property values, Cascading, and Inheritance
  5. Media types
  6. Box model
  7. Visual formatting model
  9. Visual effects
  10. Generated content, automatic numbering, and lists
  11. Paged media
  12. Colors and Backgrounds
  13. Fonts
  14. Text
  15. Tables
  16. User interface

This is clearly too much to cover in this article. In other areas, WP:SPINOFF articles have been created to treat the syntax and usage of technologies in more detail. These other articles, unfortunately, tend to receive less 'love and care' than the main articles, but they are considered better than nothing in the technical area. Examples that spring to mind are HTML elements (from HTML), and XSLT elements from XSLT. Do other editors think it might be worth doing the same thing here with, say, CSS syntax? This section could be moved there, others added, and the whole thing linked from this article. --Nigelj (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your time and (great) work. However I'd suggest moving all this to the CSS Book where it belongs. This article is just about explaining people what CSS is, what it does and why its cool. I'd like so see one or two basic examples and maybe something like a table with all selectors and all params of the media attribute. Furthermore I'd like to strip out the "Limitations" section and rename the "Advantage" part to "Benefits" or something similar, opinions? --Darth NormaN (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Page Overhaul

I want to start an overhaul of this article, see here User:Darth NormaN/New CSS Article for a current state. What do you think, what is really needed, what could be removed? --Darth NormaN (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

nothing happens there... I also see not a reason to rewrite the full article - sections yes (but not reed on a separate page)... This article has the potential to get FA in far future... mabdul 12:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Priority scheme for CSS sources

Priority scheme for CSS sources (from highest to lowest priority)

Are Author styles really higher-priority than User styles? 68.52.142.26 (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. "By default, rules in author style sheets have more weight than rules in user style sheets. Precedence is reversed, however, for "!important" rules. All user and author rules have more weight than rules in the UA's default style sheet.", http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html --Nigelj (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

BNF for selector - why is ':pseudo-' in blue?

On Mac/Safari the string ':pseudo-' (shown below in bold) is shown in blue. Not sure if intentional?

selector [, selector2, ...][:pseudo-class] { 

 property: value;
[property2: value2;
 ...]

} 68.52.142.26 (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's part of the behaviour of GeSHi, which is installed server-side here, when we specify '<source lang="css">' around the sample. It's not the word 'pseudo' that stimulates the blue colour-highlighting - anything after a : in a selector is highlighted that way, i.e. any pseudo class name, valid or not. GeSHi also makes the punctuation green and the comment grey. It uses different colours and rules for whichever software language you specify in the wiki-markup. --Nigelj (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Flexibility Section Introduces Irrelavent Topic

Under the Advantages - Flexibility Section, the article talks about the advantages of Content Management Systems but does not clearly describe how this relates to CSS. While many Content Management Systems do employ CSS, this section is irrelavent and strays from the article topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.185.111 (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


How to write "web"?

The Web - how to write? I think it is wrong to write a proper noun without capitalisation of the first letter. So, the "Web browser" would be the right way to write, as the Web stays for the one and only one World Wide Web. Sae1962 (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you look at Internet capitalization conventions since this consists on the same problematic. mabdul 10:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the best plan we have is that we do not capitalise adjectives (What kind of browser? A web browser. Similarly, a web page, web site, web technologies, internet access, etc), but we do, at the moment, still capitalise the nouns when they refer to the global items (the Web and the Internet, like the technologies that built the Web, access to the Internet, etc but not otherwise like 'I built a small private experimental internet between the offices', although nobody would say that any more). This capitalisation of the nouns is mainly an American usage, and looks very Germanic to me. It is not common in the UK and many other places where English is spoken, but there are a lot of American readers and editors here, and some of them feel strongly about it. --Nigelj (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, really common in German... Oh and I would write these like in the UK. We should move the discussion to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)! mabdul 12:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Web_page#Capitalizing_.22web.22 ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Manual of Style on Capital letters. LittleBen (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Browser support paragraph

The Browser support paragraph needs to be updated. It has been written with an August 2009 perspective. And the 'Limitations' and 'Advantages' section should be switched. These days _a large majority_ of web pages uses CSS. No need to create the impression that there are viable alternatives. CSS is _the_ web styling DSL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.188.100.254 (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that we need reliable references for this, otherwise it would be original research! mabdul 13:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Classes

While Pseudo-classes are defined but Classes are not. Shouldn't they be defined too? --79.40.164.18 (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Section Uses is broken

The uses section of this page is reporting php code from mediawiki and may need to be reviewed. Help is needed to correct this issue NotinREALITY 23:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  • UPDATE Section has been repaired, may have been proxy issue :D NotinREALITY 23:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

redundant

Isn't calling CSS: Cascading Style Sheets redundant when we say CSS Cascading Style Sheets? This article uses the acronym with its meaning in sequential order in a redundant fashion. I am wondering why? My query is: Shouldn't this be corrected to read only CSS once the antecedent is identified and recognized the first time? Thank you.

I don't know what you want to say since the article only mentions Cascading Style Sheets only one time (in the lede plus in the infobox, in the navigation boxes, and in the references). Or are you talking about something different? mabdul 16:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

border-radius

I added a bit to the section on CSS 3 addressing the increasing usage of the border-radius property in websites, but don't know where I got the information from. Can anyone find a possible resource for that? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Pros and Cons of CSS

I noticed that the section on "Limitations" comes before the section "Advantages". Shouldn't these be switched around? A reader might skim down the page to see the advantages section, and then scroll down and be confused that the Limitations are not there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.85.41 (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a good reason the "Limitations" are given priority: CSS is a headache. I wish CSS would {float:away;}

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.244.100 (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

History

When Tim Berners-Lee wrote ENQUIRE in 1980, he used a simple style sheet, so he definitely needs to be mentioned here. AmySmiles (talk) www.w3.org/Style/LieBos2e/history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmySmiles (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Syntax Example

I I just wanted to say that the recent removal of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cascading_Style_Sheets&diff=prev&oldid=577373579 is a annoying. "rm non-example that conveys absolutely nothing" Well maybe it's not a example as such but it certainly conveys what is meant in the above text by selector, :pseudo-class and such! Why not just remove the word example and put it under syntax or something??????? What annoys me is when I show people the page now it only show what CSS isn't! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cascading_Style_Sheets&diff=prev&oldid=573924404 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.137.85 (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Expansion of topic

Should there be a separate article for CSS3? Or even more detail? Personally, I'd like to see a separate article for each module, and a list of modules which is sortable by W3C status and contains browser support status. Davidlark (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Reset style sheets

Another suggestion, reset style sheets have played a relevant role in CSS development. Six Revisions probably wrote the most comprehensive article about the history of resets (though it’s not entirely accurate), which may be a good basis to work with or point to. (Though the article quotes me, and I responded, I’m not affiliated with them.) Resets may warrant more coverage beyond this, however.--j9t (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Property overview

Adding this here to avoid a conflict of interest situation: The article lacks a pointer to all available CSS properties (now over 300), something that’s useful to get an overview and an idea of the size of CSS. The W3C doesn’t offer a complete list. I’m personally maintaining an index covering all of CSS (hence conflict of interest); I believe of the alternatives, none are complete, but maybe there’s something better. Suggestion for unbiased experts to decide.--j9t (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose We're not a reference guide. It would be much better for us to link to one. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Clarification—That was the suggestion (pointing to an overview, not duplicating one).--j9t (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Cascading?

May I timidly ask what is the meaning/significance of the word 'cascading'? I really do not know, and I came here hoping to learn. Can the origin of the term be included on the page? As for 'style sheet' - this is derived from the printing industry. It was a list of instructions to typesetters, compositors, proof-checkers etc. defining the 'house style' for publications printed at that establishment. Bluedawe 00:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Cascade" means for information to be passed down or passed on. A cascading waterfall passes down water as a CSS passes down information to the HTML document. Admittedly, I have never heard the term "cascade" being used in this way. I usually think of waterfalls, not information. Hope this helps. Ripberger (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not what the CSS cascade means at all. The 'cascade' in CSS is the choice algorithm applied to the (possibly many) statements of CSS rules in all the stylesheets in scope for each page, then the choice of which style rule conveys the finally selected value for each property. http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/cascade.html#cascade
Andy Dingley (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Cheatsheet

I think that this free cheatsheet can be useful: [CSS3 Cheatsheet] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.28.246.222 (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

HTML, XML, SVG...

There are a great many references in the article to 'HTML'. We should remember that CSS is also applied to XML, XHTML, SVG and many other document types that are based on XML. There used to be an example here of taking arbitrary XML markup, and applying a stylesheet to create a perfectly good display in a normal browser. At the very least, I think we should go through the whole article replacing all these references to 'HTML' with something like 'the markup' or 'the document', or 'the document markup'. I'm sure people will be coming here because of the use of CSS in whatever XML technology they are looking at, and wondering at all these references to HTML, which is irrelevant to them. --Nigelj (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - CSS is independent of HTML. mabdul 14:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose CSS is regularly applied to HTML. The application of CSS to non-HTML XML (which would include SVG) is possible, and was considered at one time to be a likely avenue for its development. However in practice it turned out to be an evolutionary dead end and, in practical terms, it just doesn't happen. It should be mentioned that CSS has been used to render XML too, but not to the point where we confuse the readability of a mainstream explanation of CSS being applied to HTML by behaving as if it was applied to anything else with any sort of frequency. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    You are aware that "It is a requirement that CSS styling can be applied to SVG [1.1] content", as of August last year?[8] Where are you getting your information about evolutionary dead ends and what does and doesn't happen? I think we need references please, for such a bold assertion. --Nigelj (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    I have to say I am surprised at Andy Dingley writing this, especially as recently as 2012. Eisenberg's SVG Essentials contained an appendix on the use of CSS as early as 2002. So much of what was once defined in the SVG specification has since been devolved to, or subsumed by, CSS that SVG 2 would now be virtually useless without it. (There are a few who occasionally question the wisdom of this development.) Globbet (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Odd language usage in the first few sentences

The use of the word "describe" is incorrect. The parameters written in CSS are declarations (instructions). CSS is not having a casual chat with the browser! It is telling the browser what to do by giving instructions in a declarative manner. I have seen this usage of the the word "describe" for HTML as well. It is just plain incorrect from a computing technology and English Language perspective. If no one changes it (or has any valid objections) I can reword it (if I remember to come back here!).--Hypernator (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being altered, but I'm just replying to defend the use of "describe" (not to object to your preference). That is, it's really not incorrect English usage to say that CSS describes document presentation. (Compare the definitions given at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/describe; and consider that "color:white; background-color: orange" is a description in words of what the presentation should look like.) It may be preferable to say that it declares document presentation (or specifies it), but it's not "wrong", language-wise, to say it describes it. But it may not be the word that most developers would prefer. So I understand your preference and have no objection to it being changed. (Only objected to the specific phrase "just plain incorrect from ... English Language perspective.") Quercus solaris (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
OK Quercus, I am inclined to agree with you in that I was possibly nit-picking. It is mainly just because I would attribute the "describing" of something to be associated with something that already exists. Where webpages are concerned, the layout does not exist until until you have "told" it (instructed it) what to do. For example, it could be said that the drill sergeant is "describing" what he wants the troops to do when they are marching; it just does not seem to present it in an appropriate manner. It may be best if I leave it for the moment.--Hypernator (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What is "CSS-3D"?

I just ran into the term "CSS-3D" in Jos Dirksen's book "Three.js" (Oct 2013), and he mentions a new "CSS-3D" specification (page 9). Is this an addition to the CSS standard defined by the W3C, or is it a separate project that just uses the acronym "CSS"? Should it be mentioned in this article, or a separate article? I found a link to here at the w3.org site, linked from here on the Mozilla site, but the link is dead. Jimw338 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Definition of "nominal"

The term "nominal parameters" is used but what sense of "nominal" is this? Googling the term just gets recyclings from this article. robotwisdom (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

we give command for adio or video setting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.124.20 (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Illustration of code not consistent

The image at the top right side of the Article page has a few inconsistencies:

  1. The first line in the h1 selector's ruleset (a.k.a. rule, style) has the first declaration immediately after the opening brace on the same line.
    • This is not standard syntax when there are other declarations that are listed on separate lines beneath it.
    • It is also inconsistent with the second selector's ruleset, which has a line break after the opening brace, which is standard syntax.
  2. Line 2 (the second declaration of the h1 ruleset) uses the shorthand property background for the background color whereas line 10 (the body ruleset's first declaration) uses the specific property background-color
  3. Line 4 can be written simply as padding: 0;
* W3C – background shorthand
** W3C – border shorthand property: "The 'border' property is a shorthand property for setting the same width, color, and style for all four borders of a box."

Additional references:

Suggested alternative example code (note that I have also removed all the spaces between the colon ( : ) and the values. 

h1 {
  color:white;
  background:orange;
  border:1px solid black;
  padding:0;
  font-weight:bold;
}
body {
  background:white;
  color:black;
  font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
  margin:0 4px 0 0;
  border:12px solid;
}

Dawnvawn (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Methodologies - new page?

Should the design methodologies section be made into a new topic unto itself? there are multiple such ones and they have their own websites and stuff what you peeps think! Krehel (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

History Discrepancy

A. The history section reads: "At the time, Lie was working with Tim Berners-Lee at CERN."

B. However, the W3C article reads: "The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) was founded by Tim Berners-Lee after he left the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in October, 1994." (emphasis mine)

C. According to World_Wide_Web_Consortium#History, the W3C was formed on October 1.

If B & C are correct, then A cannot be.

Information from [W3C](https://www.w3.org/Style/History/Overview.en.html) suggests the story is a bit different.

Currently, the first portion of the history section seems to roughly be of the following form: - A questionable assertion on the authorship of the CSS1 standard - A note on stylesheets in general and the unique problems posed by 'stylesheets on the web' - Notes on patterns of presentation that were common at the time (browser-specific stylesheets) - A questionable assertion on how the community pared down then-current proposals into what we now know as CSS1 - Irrelevant information about working groups of the W3C

I would propose the following form instead: - Information about pre-web stylesheets - Information about pre-CSS styling concerns (browser-specific stylesheets, etc.) - A history that more accurately portrays the different directions of thinking at the time, more closely reflecting the varied authorship reflected in the W3C's history of CSS page (this could include the mention of Netscape's JSSS proposal), culminating in the publishing of the CSS1 proposal

I think this would better reflect how the social systems and motivations that produced the web as we know it were (like the web itself) decentralized and built by the influence of many different paradigms, individuals, discussions, and ideas -- as opposed to being the brain child of just a select few.

--Jimmcnulty41 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

calc()

Shouldn't "calc()" be introduced (or similar) before the following (sub section Former issues)?

... with a calc() value to address ...

--Mortense (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess that you mean the calc() function. That's part of CSS Values and Units Module Level 3, which is a W3C Candidate Recommendation (last updated 6 June 2019), and has been at the CR stage since 28 August 2012 - as such isn't necessarily available in all browsers yet. I think we should wait until it becomes a full W3C Recommendation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 03:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


Cascading Style Sheets → CSS – Recently I started an RM on the article Application programming interface, requesting it be moved to API. Yesterday, it closed with a consensus to move, and in the discussion, I mentioned this article as another article that would benefit from the same kind of move. In my view, this topic is known primarily by its abbreviation, and it is true that readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym—see WP:ACRONYMTITLE, as well as the similarly titled articles API, HTML, USB, and HDMI. See also Google Ngrams. Note also that the proposed new title, CSS, already redirects to this article. Mz7 (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose - obscure abbreviations should be expanded in titles for both WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:NATURALDIS. Its totally misleading of the OP to fail to mention other technology topics which do not abbreviate, such as Central processing unit, graphical user interface, etc. Certain terms are fine to abbreviate, but only when they are general consumer-level terms (HTML, USB, and HDMI are good examples of that but should be considered exceptions). Anything else more narrowly technical in nature should be expanded. WP:ACRONYMTITLE (which is strangely part of the MOS and not a naming convention) should be adjusted, as it is those that are more unfamiliar with a topic that need more assistance via expanded titles - those with slight familiarity aren't a concern. OP's Ngrams link is misleading as many of those those "CSS" results could be for totally unrelated topics (note the high number of results prior to 1994 - before Cascading Style Sheets were even proposed), and because most sources on this topic do as we do - expand the acronym title and early in the work, but abbreviate throughout the rest of the text. -- Netoholic @ 16:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    This is hands-down not an obscure abbreviation. Frankly, if you ask many people who work in the field of web software development what "CSS" stands for, it is quite probable they will actually be unsure. I really have to push back against the idea that it is beneficial for our readers to spell out acronyms like this when they are almost universally abbreviated. I agree with you that certain titles like central processing unit and graphical user interface are more recognizable by lay readers when spelled out, but CSS is categorically not such a subject. Mz7 (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    "people who work in the field" is exactly the problem - we should make decisions about what is most clear to the most readers, not a small subset of technical people. -- Netoholic @ 01:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    I don't disagree that we should make the decision that is most clear to the most readers, and I apologize if I gave any contrary impression through my wording. In this case, that clearest option is the abbreviation, and it would be a disservice to our readers to use a less recognizable title. HTML is another example of a markup language used primarily by technical people, but you listed it above among the "good examples" where it is fine to abbreviate it because consumers universally recognize the subject by its acronym. I don't fully understand the argument why we should deviate from that same practice for CSS. Mz7 (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with the nominator that the title is primarily known by its acronym. It also satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. Interstellarity (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and per Interstellarity's comment above (satisfies WP:COMMONNAME). Chlod (say hi!) 10:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMON NAME. CSS as an abbreviation is anything but obscure. A Google search reveals there are 391 millions results for CSS vs no more than 6 million for the full name. Northern Moonlight 01:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flexbox? (Possible section addition)

Having some personal experience with CSS, I know that formatting and styling pages is considerably more difficult when using default CSS than it is while using flexbox. Flexbox is basically a way to change the syntax and "language", if you will, of CSS to make it quicker and easier to stylize your the web page. It could possibly be deserving of its own sub section, however, I don't feel qualified to write it since I haven't taken a dev class for a couple years. Cpt5mann (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cpt5mann: Grid has even more flexibility than Flexbox. CSS is changing from a line-by-line styling language into a language that will have more possibility to add selectors with properties that behave more like variables; especially the latter would grant a section about CSS's development. Jolarti (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Security risks of CSS

Hello Mindmatrix. Why are these sources unreliable? --KleinerKorrektor (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@KleinerKorrektor: That edit was made by User:MrOllie, who reverted your change to a revision of the article last edited by me. I was otherwise not involved with that change. Mindmatrix 17:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Self published materials such as github and blog postings are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Please see WP:RS for details. MrOllie (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Whoops... sorry my fault Mindmatrix ^_^
@MrOllie Depends on the quality I would say... so there should be exceptions from this rule. The fact base is there and the blog post would definitely be legit for a sentences like: "Mike Gualtieri and before him others described foobar", don't you agree?
These kinds of attack vectors are well known for a long time but nothing happens on the w3c, or browser vendors site.
I think that information should be in the article, because it is relevant, even if it hasn't got that much public attention yet (probably because of missing expertise by reliable sources?)
Interesting short video: CSS Keylogger - old is new again
--KleinerKorrektor (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
If you disagree with it you're welcome to try to get the policy changed, but we can't simply ignore it until that happens. MrOllie (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CSS/Archive_3&oldid=1197926341"