A CSS framework that actually separates content from presentation. I wish that kind of things was more common.
Writ – Opinionated, classless styles for semantic HTML
21–30 of 65 posts
Re: Writ – Opinionated, classless styles for semantic HTML
#22The notion that this feels refreshing enough to be compelling news is a testament to how incredibly convoluted our use of browser technology has become. It's nice to be reminded of CSS's humbler, less-radioactive days...
I agree. The more worrying thing is that with proposals like CSS Modules, we're going even deeper down the rabbit hole with classes everywhere for everything.
Perhaps, but I think we're actually on the right track. With enough tumbling down the proverbial rabbit hole, we might finally just pop up on the other side.
Our tools have gotten good enough to allow us to imagine many permutations of a hypothetical future-browser, and the best ideas coming from these experimental technologies are being embraced by companies like Facebook and Google, who represent an obvious power-player in terms of spec influence.
In particular the recent trend of eliminating all the global scope/cascade issues (most notably via "CSS in JS" from the React community) is a good sign that our technology is evolving -- not merely mutating.
Re: Writ – Opinionated, classless styles for semantic HTML
#23Do people realize here that classes in HTML were actually invented to hook styling info through CSS and that it's actually the approved and promoted use case by the standards body?
I can't speak for everyone, but I suspect web developers are used to staring at "markup soup" when viewing the source of a pretty-nice-looking website such as the one showcased here, and so this seems refreshingly elegant.
Re: Writ – Opinionated, classless styles for semantic HTML
#24That doesn't tell us jack shit.
Re: Writ – Opinionated, classless styles for semantic HTML
#25The notion that this feels refreshing enough to be compelling news is a testament to how incredibly convoluted our use of browser technology has become. It's nice to be reminded of CSS's humbler, less-radioactive days...
CSS has always been broken. For example, for many years it was impossible to vertically center an element in its parent (without extensive hacks). And still there are weird things like not being able to select all elements A which have B in them with a single CSS rule.
In my opinion, the reason that web technology sucks is that the standards are being created for novices instead of for developers. If the web was a place for developers, we would have seen multiple competing replacements for CSS years ago.
Re: Writ – Opinionated, classless styles for semantic HTML
#26The notion that this feels refreshing enough to be compelling news is a testament to how incredibly convoluted our use of browser technology has become. It's nice to be reminded of CSS's humbler, less-radioactive days...
CSS has always been broken. For example, for many years it was impossible to vertically center an element in its parent (without extensive hacks). And still there are weird things like not being able to select all elements A which have B in them with a single CSS rule. In my opinion, the reason that web technology sucks is that the standards are being created for novices instead of for developers. If the web was a pl…
As a developer whose job is to deal with the ugly details of implementation, it's easy to forget the original purpose of the technology we're building.
Creating something for novices (or humans, as I like to call them) is the noble thing to do. Maybe the standards committee missed the target somewhat, but their goal was to empower anyone to participate in the web.
I'm getting a bit sidetracked now, but I highly recommend watching this fantastic talk by Bret Victor; it has really changed the way I think about the work I do: https://vimeo.com/115154289
Re: Writ – Opinionated, classless styles for semantic HTML
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
CSS has always been broken. For example, for many years it was impossible to vertically center an element in its parent (without extensive hacks). And still there are weird things like not being able to select all elements A which have B in them with a single CSS rule. In my opinion, the reason that web technology sucks is that the standards are being created for novices instead of for developers. If the web was a pl…
As a developer whose job is to deal with the ugly details of implementation, it's easy to forget the original purpose of the technology we're building. Creating something for novices (or humans, as I like to call them) is the noble thing to do. Maybe the standards committee missed the target somewhat, but their goal was to empower anyone to participate in the web. I'm getting a bit sidetracked now, but I highly recom…
> Creating something for novices (or humans, as I like to call them) is the noble thing to do.
No, the noble thing to do for a committee is to acknowledge that you (as a committee, no matter how large) don't know what is best for all people, and that there are intelligent people out there (i.e., not part of the committee) who might have more insight than you do.
EDIT: Rephrased this a little because from the comments it seems this was misunderstood.
Re: Writ – Opinionated, classless styles for semantic HTML
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a developer whose job is to deal with the ugly details of implementation, it's easy to forget the original purpose of the technology we're building. Creating something for novices (or humans, as I like to call them) is the noble thing to do. Maybe the standards committee missed the target somewhat, but their goal was to empower anyone to participate in the web. I'm getting a bit sidetracked now, but I highly recom…
> Creating something for novices (or humans, as I like to call them) is the noble thing to do. No, the noble thing to do for a committee is to acknowledge that you (as a committee, no matter how large) don't know what is best for all people, and that there are intelligent people out there (i.e., not part of the committee) who might have more insight than you do. EDIT: Rephrased this a little because from the comments…
Re: Writ – Opinionated, classless styles for semantic HTML
#29Do people realize here that classes in HTML were actually invented to hook styling info through CSS and that it's actually the approved and promoted use case by the standards body?
I can't speak for everyone, but I suspect web developers are used to staring at "markup soup" when viewing the source of a pretty-nice-looking website such as the one showcased here, and so this seems refreshingly elegant.
I know I certainly appreciate as little of the markup soup as possible. I tend to try and use as little markup as needed to write semantically correct code. However, these days people expect you to use the twitter bootstrap and markup soup to build sites and web apps. I don't understand why people are fighting the web rather than working with it.
Re: Writ – Opinionated, classless styles for semantic HTML
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Creating something for novices (or humans, as I like to call them) is the noble thing to do. No, the noble thing to do for a committee is to acknowledge that you (as a committee, no matter how large) don't know what is best for all people, and that there are intelligent people out there (i.e., not part of the committee) who might have more insight than you do. EDIT: Rephrased this a little because from the comments…
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/join
Or just join www-style[1] or public-webapps[2], or there's the WHATWG mailing list for all of its specs[3]. All of these are totally free to join.
[1]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/ [2]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ [3]: https://whatwg.org/mailing-list#specs