3 ms·

The fundamental problem I see is that CSS is far too weak for proper separation of concerns. You can't make a nice structure in HTML, and then style it with CS

by ken 7y ago

The fundamental problem I see is that CSS is far too weak for proper separation of concerns. You can't make a nice structure in HTML, and then style it with CSS. You have to structure your HTML from the start in a way that it's feasible to style it with CSS. (That's why every CSS question on Stack Overflow has an answer that says "use this HTML: ... and this CSS: ...". It's rarely possible to use some random HTML and style it in an arbitrary way.) The CSS designers decided to pick a purely declarative stylesheet language, which is a cool idea and has some interesting properties. One of the things you sacrifice with this decision, though, is the ability to structure the HTML as you wish. You've got two languages you need to play with, and you've got to tweak them in concert. There's an alternate universe where they chose to use JavaScript as the styling language. The style layer runs in its own sandbox completely separate from any other JS on your page, and all it does is accept HTML trees and lay out and style them. You can structure your HTML in any way you want, and then write 3 lines of JS to style it any way you want. You can implement TeX-style word wrapping or media queries as a library. Your designers don't have to talk to your programmers when they change something, because the HTML is generic from the start.

underwater 7y ago
Writing code to transform arbitrary XML/HTML trees to a layout is really hard. Naive solutions tend to break down as soon as you get weirdly structured trees. Expressing "Handle <span> nodes like this unless there is a child with class 'foo', or we are descended from a <p> with class 'bar'" in imperative code is hard. I've worked on a moderately complex codebase that did something like this and it took a long time to get to a place where new feature requests didn't end up introducing additional complexity and the codebase wasn't a big ball of mud. For all CSS's faults, most developers can still ship code that is understandable.
sonofhans 7y ago
I agree with you that CSS is weak, especially from today's POV, and that HTML & CSS can be unwieldy together. Also that "It's rarely possible to use some random HTML and style it in an arbitrary way." However it's not true that "can't make a nice structure in HTML, and then style it with CSS." That is one of the design goals of CSS, and it works. In a former life I did this for many years, with many CMS and front-end systems. In a well-structured Drupal or Wordpress site, for instance, you can link to one additional stylesheet and override any aspect of the design. Some of the CSS might be ugly, and every now and then you might need the HTML tweaked to add a class, but it works. Check out [http://www.csszengarden.com http://www.csszengarden.com]. This is an old site, nearly 20 years old, put up by designer Dave Shea precisely to disprove your point :) It sports hundreds of interesting designs with non-trivial layouts, really pushing the boundaries of what was possible back in the day. All of the designs are CSS-only, and hang off the same HTML skeleton. If you view the source, it's pretty simple. Doing this with JavaScript introduces all sorts of other concerns: accessibility, security, privacy, maintainability, future-proofness, compute necessary to render, render time, etc. jQuery did basically this, right? Selecting markup and content with CSS syntax to munge them, or attach triggers. I rarely see people write vanilla CSS these days. Most folks abstract it with SCSS or LESS. That removes a lot of the warts. It's still too easy to end up with 5000 lines of CSS that can only be tested by manual inspection :/
- ellyagg 7y ago
  You can re-style arbitrary (or well-designed) HTML in lots of different and cool ways with CSS. But you can't re-style it to the new particular design that management wants. And even if I'm wrong, the last decade has proven that your regular above-average developer can't typically do it, and that amounts to the same thing.
aliveupstairs 7y ago
> (That's why every CSS question on Stack Overflow has an answer that says "use this HTML: ... and this CSS: ...". It's rarely possible to use some random HTML and style it in an arbitrary way.) I think that's a different issue that has to do with the web not having proper layout tools. Where in order to position a group of elements, you had to div them. Nowadays, we have `align-self` and `display: contents`.

by ken 7y ago

underwater 7y ago

Writing code to transform arbitrary XML/HTML trees to a layout is really hard. Naive solutions tend to break down as soon as you get weirdly structured trees. Expressing "Handle <span> nodes like this unless there is a child with class 'foo', or we are descended from a <p> with class 'bar'" in imperative code is hard. I've worked on a moderately complex codebase that did something like this and it took a long time to get to a place where new feature requests didn't end up introducing additional complexity and the codebase wasn't a big ball of mud. For all CSS's faults, most developers can still ship code that is understandable.

sonofhans 7y ago

I agree with you that CSS is weak, especially from today's POV, and that HTML & CSS can be unwieldy together. Also that "It's rarely possible to use some random HTML and style it in an arbitrary way." However it's not true that "can't make a nice structure in HTML, and then style it with CSS." That is one of the design goals of CSS, and it works. In a former life I did this for many years, with many CMS and front-end systems. In a well-structured Drupal or Wordpress site, for instance, you can link to one additional stylesheet and override any aspect of the design. Some of the CSS might be ugly, and every now and then you might need the HTML tweaked to add a class, but it works. Check out [http://www.csszengarden.com http://www.csszengarden.com]. This is an old site, nearly 20 years old, put up by designer Dave Shea precisely to disprove your point :) It sports hundreds of interesting designs with non-trivial layouts, really pushing the boundaries of what was possible back in the day. All of the designs are CSS-only, and hang off the same HTML skeleton. If you view the source, it's pretty simple. Doing this with JavaScript introduces all sorts of other concerns: accessibility, security, privacy, maintainability, future-proofness, compute necessary to render, render time, etc. jQuery did basically this, right? Selecting markup and content with CSS syntax to munge them, or attach triggers. I rarely see people write vanilla CSS these days. Most folks abstract it with SCSS or LESS. That removes a lot of the warts. It's still too easy to end up with 5000 lines of CSS that can only be tested by manual inspection :/

ellyagg 7y ago
You can re-style arbitrary (or well-designed) HTML in lots of different and cool ways with CSS. But you can't re-style it to the new particular design that management wants. And even if I'm wrong, the last decade has proven that your regular above-average developer can't typically do it, and that amounts to the same thing.

aliveupstairs 7y ago

> (That's why every CSS question on Stack Overflow has an answer that says "use this HTML: ... and this CSS: ...". It's rarely possible to use some random HTML and style it in an arbitrary way.) I think that's a different issue that has to do with the web not having proper layout tools. Where in order to position a group of elements, you had to div them. Nowadays, we have `align-self` and `display: contents`.