11–20 of 245 posts
It's a great way to make conditional styles without having to use JavaScript; however, having used JS for years to make theme color and icon sets that rely on CSS properties, I'm not sure I particularly like this method. I feel like you have to smear a lot of logic across your CSS whereas with JS you can reduce your theme to a data structure and just have a simple function to setup all the CSS variables based on that…
Not supported in Firefox and Safari. Also it seems most people forget that the more bloated the web platform is, the more resources are needed to develop and maintain a web browser engine.. Chromium is open-source, but it's already expensive to maintain a fork or even rebuild it..
[flagged]
That's pretty simple - Google has poured tons of money into Chrome and Mozilla. Google is not a charity so this was a strategic investment.
> You should go over to the CSS working group and let them know
That wouldn't work, money is what ultimately matters there.
It's a great way to make conditional styles without having to use JavaScript; however, having used JS for years to make theme color and icon sets that rely on CSS properties, I'm not sure I particularly like this method. I feel like you have to smear a lot of logic across your CSS whereas with JS you can reduce your theme to a data structure and just have a simple function to setup all the CSS variables based on that…
If we could do it over, knowing that we'd eventually get to this point, would https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript_Style_Sheets have been the better path?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> How did this happen? That's pretty simple - Google has poured tons of money into Chrome and Mozilla. Google is not a charity so this was a strategic investment. > You should go over to the CSS working group and let them know That wouldn't work, money is what ultimately matters there.
If we could do it over, knowing that we'd eventually get to this point, would https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript_Style_Sheets have been the better path?
If I had a time machine I would go back and ensure that DSSSL ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Style_Semantics_and_S... ) was the standard that got up.
If we could do it over, knowing that we'd eventually get to this point, would https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript_Style_Sheets have been the better path?
If I had a time machine I would go back and ensure that DSSSL ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Style_Semantics_and_S... ) was the standard that got up.
Although I feel like we've already explored this with XSL. The XML syntax was perhaps too much to swallow.
Far from being ready when only one major browser supports it. If you want this, you should vote for it to be focused on for interop-2026 https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/issues Right now, the leading CSS proposals are `@container style()`, `corner-shape` and `break-after` https://foolip.github.io/interop-reactions/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How did this happen? That's pretty simple - Google has poured tons of money into Chrome and Mozilla. Google is not a charity so this was a strategic investment. > You should go over to the CSS working group and let them know That wouldn't work, money is what ultimately matters there.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
lol. What other browser vendors? Whatwg is just google is a trench coat. Edge is chrome. Firefox is funded by Google. So I guess apple who's main contribution is being years behind and having half their stuff be broken
If Google controls everything, why is if() only supported on 59% traffic? Do you think any serious company will let their site break on 40% of clients? Do you think Apple's opinion is unimportant?