3 ms·
> I'm not a webdev at all, but this just looks like 100 lines of trivial CSS to me. What am I missing? I am not a webdev either. This is a trivial CSS indeed.
by susam 6y ago
> I'm not a webdev at all, but this just looks like 100 lines of trivial CSS to me. What am I missing?
I am not a webdev either. This is a trivial CSS indeed. I don't think you are missing anything. When I posted this on Hacker News, I was hoping some people would like it because they might find it useful. Like I said, I am not really a front-end developer. But I do hack up simple HTML pages together for simple text-based websites from time to time. While doing so, I find myself using this minimal (and trivial) CSS frequently to make the page appear slightly more pleasing compared to what it looks like with the browser defaults, so I moved all that CSS out to a separate repository and shared it here. It is useful to me. If it is useful to someone else, that's a bonus!
- wruza 6y agoYour demo looks nice. This is what I’d expect from browsers’ default stylesheets if these were not a tasteless disaster that nobody can stand.
- enriquto 6y ago> default stylesheets if these were not a tasteless disaster that nobody can stand. I beg to disagree. Having browsed quite a few sites with css disabled over the years, I can assess that default stylesheets tend to grow in you and that you may end up liking them. In a saner world, all sites would use default stylesheets (with empty css), and individual users would set up whatever css they deem beautiful each day.
- rmetzler 6y agoI kind of agree, because I like to use the Reader view on mobile. What I dislike most about the default css on most browsers is the New Times Roman font and the fact that content can take the whole width of the browser view.
- enriquto 6y agoI like the times new roman font, but you can easily change it in your browser configuration if it bothers you. Regarding full-width content, maybe your browser window is too wide? or your font is too small?
- bertylicious 6y agoOk, now it makes more sense to me. Thanks for clearing that up!