Talk:CSS

August 2024

When will there be a CSS 4? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewestPiano (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@NewestPiano: See my reply at #Latest release section above. Since the likelihood of a full CSS 3 specification is small, it follows that a CSS 4 spec is even less likely. In short: never. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I did now. NewestPiano (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait Never?!? NewestPiano (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, have a read of CSS Snapshot 2023 section 2.4. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I read Already. NewestPiano (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

New CSS Logo?

CSS appears to be getting a new logo - see here and here. I'm not 100% sure if it's actually official, though, so I'm still hesitant on adding it to the article - I'd like for someone else to doublecheck and ensure that I'm not being an idiot here. Rabbithawk256 (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That's my reason for removing it so far. What I would like to see is some secondary source announce or run with it at least once before we as a tertiary source publish it. Remsense ‥ 论 16:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

New logo was decided by the CSS4 Community Group under the W3C created on 24 February 2020. According to the W3C, Community Groups are:

A W3C Community Group is an open forum, without fees, where Web developers and other stakeholders develop reports, hold discussions, develop test suites, and connect with W3C’s international community of Web experts. Community Groups may produce Reports; these are not standards-track documents but may become input to the standards process. For instance, a Community Group might gather to work on a new technical specification, or convene to have discussions about a tutorial for an existing specification.

So this is not an official standard, however the committee's existence is so far sanctioned by the W3C. It is important to note also that the CSS4 Community Group is unaffiliated with the CSS Working Group which is the official committee responsible for developing the CSS language.

TL;DR: Is this official? Hard to say, might want to ask the CSS4 CG and CSSWG folks. Kreuner (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The blue CSS badge logo that's currently in the article isn't official either; it just comes from a DeviantArt artist. It's just the most commonly used logo for CSS, but perhaps that's because of its inclusion in Wikipedia: the top results on Google for "css official logo" are from Wikipedia and other stock image sites.

The blue badge logo design originates from the colorless CSS3 icon that accompanied W3C's HTML logo. SheepTester (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this seems to be the most appropriate logo right now. Kreuner (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems like the logo may be adopted by the W3C CSSWG: [1]. I imagine if they issue an official endorsement of some form then there may be some secondary coverage.  novov talk edits 10:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The rebeccapurple CSS logo created by The CSS-Next Community Group has already has a planned endorsement by the CSSWG. Please see github/w3c/csswg-drafts#11193 for more info. At this point where the W3C CSSWG is going to endorse it, continuing to have the current CSS3 logo will certainly confuse new web developers. Ring2gaun2GRUS (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Blueprint CSS framework is outdated

The Blueprint CSS framework is outdated. (14 years old). It should be replaced by a current framework. Maybe it is maintained in a fork. Then a link should be fiven to that. 102.176.94.17 (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

We describe what is available. We do not give advice on what people should use. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we please stop this person from reverting the new css logo

This one individual is reverting all changes by anyone regarding the new css logo, despite them getting down votes and every other addition getting a flood of up votes. I'm going to try one more time ITZ NAO (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Only if you can abide by the basic directions I already laid out months ago. "Down votes" can't override site policy—what do you even mean when you say that? Remsense ‥ 论 17:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Even if everyone wants it added to the site? The history of the logo? It's the new official logo and it should be added. ITZ NAO (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I see a few new users who aren't aware of or are confused about our content policies, but not the situation you describe. Consensus based on site policy is what actually matters, as opposed to "vote" count, and you can't form a consensus about whether something is in line with our policies if you don't pay any mind to what those policies say to begin with. Remsense ‥ 论 17:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, please state these "basic directions". ITZ NAO (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

We should use the CSS Next CG logo (purple square). It's the only one with any sort of official recognition. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, this is what everyone wants. And this user is power tripping and causing an edit war with multiple people. ITZ NAO (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There is another thread about this, where users were fighting to have it added and he was not allowing it. ITZ NAO (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Why did you ask me to repeat what the requirements are, given you seem to know where I had previously stated them? Remsense ‥ 论 17:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

What I mainly have a problem with is the irrelevant trivia only cited to a primary source that you insist on adding and readding. We're a tertiary source that balances secondary coverage of topics, not a fan wiki that indiscriminately regurgitates our favorite press releases. Remsense ‥ 论 17:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

If you actually checked the source, they talk about the colour being added as a tribute to his daughter. Maybe you should actually try coding for once and learn a thing or two. There was nothing wrong with it. ITZ NAO (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing the encyclopedia if you don't care about following our content policies. This is a volunteer project, and you've done nothing but waste the time of others. Remsense ‥ 论 17:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you trying to remove this because it's "irrelevant trivia"? Or because you see the sourcing as inadequate for such a vital aspect?

Yes, we have a WP:SECONDARY policy. But you would also do well to read WP:PRIMARY. For a project logo, that you anyway see as "trivial", from a reputable publisher such as the W3C, then it is entirely acceptable to use this primary sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The statements are equivalent here—if the material here is covered in secondary sources, it ceases to be irrelevant or trivial. Primary sources are for citing that a new logo exists; there's no justification in treating their narratives etc. as if they are WP:DUE if they are the only source. All I am asking for is a blurb in Ars Technica or wherever—if material can't meet that level of provenance, then we shouldn't be wasting readers' time with it. Remsense ‥ 论 18:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARY before telling us what it says. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't telling you what WP:PRIMARY says; I would presume you also know. Remsense ‥ 论 21:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I am done with this conversation, we all have tried multiple times but this user insists to remove it. Happy coding everyone! ITZ NAO (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Foo

There's an annoying habit in much computing documentation of naming everything in sight either foo or bar, regardless of what it is, as a kind of in-joke. Besides being annoying and creating an instant sense of exclusion, I believe it hinders comprehension enough to matter, in several ways:

• The name conveys no hint of what role the variable/object/property/function plays. A name that did convey such a hint would be much more helpful (as long as the reader isn't confused into thinking it's a keyword used in the syntax). The reader has to work to remember that information, instead of seeing it in front of them.
• Multiple things are all given the same label.
• The annoyance, once noticed, is a distraction from focusing on and understanding the text.
• Since the name has no content, it's essentially entirely abstract, like a mathematical symbol (maybe more so). But what a reader needs for straightforward comprehensibility is a specific concept or concrete image to hold on to.

So, please could we replace instances of foo and bar in this article with something at least vaguely descriptive? Musiconeologist (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose For two reasons. Firstly the use of placeholder names foo, bar etc. has been widespread within the discipline for decades because there's an ongoing need for such metasyntactic variables. They are widely recognised by the audience reading this.

Secondly there are no names that are 'vaguely descriptive': a better term would be 'somewhat misleading'. The point of using foo etc. is that there is no meaning implied by their use. To replace E[foo="bar"] and use instead Button[rendering="rounded"] would begin to imply particular uses for the CSS code, would imply some limitation to what it was capable of, and (far worse) begins to imply that the attribute has to be named rendering in order to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley Obviously you wouldn't use something specific like that. But you're giving a property or a variable a value for example, all of which are meaningful words. There are ways of accurately suggesting the usage. But I take the point about inadvertently making things look as though they might be keywords.

But I don't think one should assume that the only audience for an article on a technical subject is people who are already immersed in the subject. Anyone who wants to know more about CSS is going to come here—for instance I visited today hoping to check what length units it recognises, and what its definition of a pixel is (both of which entailed clicking through to a reference to be sure of the answer). These are the kinds of thing someone struggling to get a table in an article to display properly might want to know, say. They most likely both need detailed information and aren't experts. If they want to know about CSS, they'll visit an article called CSS; the audience includes anyone who sees a wikilink that says CSS and clicks it. Musiconeologist (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Please see foo, or bar. Or Foobar, which covers both. And baz. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I visited that article a while ago. I still remain unconvinced that they're essential jargon as opposed to insider tradition. Though I'll admit that they're used more sensibly here than in some programming book I read years ago. (I can't remember which one, maybe a Javascript one around 2000.) Pretty well every variable or function was called Foo even if something like clever.trick or DoThisThing would have been just as good. It was like trying to follow a piece of 3D geometry where the three axes are labelled x, x and x, and just seemed like laziness on the part of the author. Musiconeologist (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Musiconeologist: I've looked deeper into this, and the answer is really very simple: it's precisely what the cited source uses. Our article CSS only uses the term "foo", etc. in one place - the table at CSS#Summary of selector syntax. This is sourced to what is claimed to be Selectors Level 3, but it's actually Selectors Level 4. The actual document titled Selectors Level 3 has a section named 2. Selectors, which matches the table in our article very closely - our article lacks the "Description" column, and there are slight variations in the second column. Our article also has four rows not in that source - .c, #myid, .c#myid, and E:has(s). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Redrose64 Interesting. Thanks! So changing it would amount to slight paraphrasing, really, if anyone were to feel the same way as me about it. (For what it's worth, I have a similar aversion to Alice and Bob in physics/mathematical explanations. But I read recently that they were originally named after specific people, which helps keep the tradition going.) Musiconeologist (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)