3 ms·
I’m still looking for a lightweight solution (no react etc) that lets me write normal CSS but scoping it to an arbitrary part of my HTML tree. Most of the time
by ess3 3y ago
I’m still looking for a lightweight solution (no react etc) that lets me write normal CSS but scoping it to an arbitrary part of my HTML tree. Most of the time I’ll be working in a partial where I know what generic names such as .container refers to And I don’t want to bother with coming up with unique names.
The best I can think of is to use descendant selectors but that increases the specificity and is hard to maintain imo.
Excited to see what the @scope feature draft can bring to this
- flashgordon 3y agoI am currently undoing nextjs out of a side project (where I spent 2 months learning react/next as it seemed like everyone knew something I didn't). I think I got pretty good at it and frankly the only useful thing I get about is it were - I think you referred to as - "isolated css". Frankly I found the whole shebang way too complicated and bloated and just was not worth being stuck to Node as a backend (I am fairly comfortable (dare I say formidable) with golang and don't see a need - for me - to switch. On fe html/Templates+webpack (scss for variables and typescript) has taken me very far with a clean and fast build step and more importantly dependencies don't break every few months! One downside though is remembering why a particular "css" after a while. But i am not a particularly fe/styling person so my css is simple. May tailwind is for the Uber fe/design crowd!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tipiirai 3y agoMe too. Unfortunately the browser support for @scope is very low atm. Cascade layers are one way to decrease specifity and are well supported [1]. [1]: https://caniuse.com/css-cascade-layers https://caniuse.com/css-cascade-layers