ⓘ Cascading Style Sheets

CSS (disambiguation)

Content Services Switch, a family of load balancers produced by Cisco CSS code, a type of error-correcting code in quantum information theory Chirp spread spectrum, a modulation concept, part of the standard IEEE 802.15.4aCSS Computational social science, academic sub-disciplines concerned with computational approaches to the social sciences Content Scramble System, an encryption algorithm in DVDs Closed-source software, software that is not distributed with source code Central Structure Store book, in the PHIGS 3D API

CSS framework

A CSS framework is a library allowing for easier, more standards-compliant web design using the Cascading Style Sheets language. Most of these frameworks contain at least a grid. More functional frameworks also come with more features and additional JavaScript based functions, but are mostly design oriented and focused around interactive UI patterns. This detail differentiates CSS frameworks from other JavaScript frameworks. Two notable and widely used examples are Bootstrap and Foundation. CSS frameworks offer different modules and tools: grid especially for responsive web design parts of ...

CSSTidy

CSSTidy is an open source Cascading Style Sheets parser and optimiser written by Florian Schmitz. C++ and PHP versions are available. The name derives from HTML Tidy, since CSSTidy is supposed to be its counterpart for CSS. Currently CSSTidy is able to fix some common errors and reformat and compress CSS code. The current version of CSSTidy is 1.3. This version was noted in the changelog on July 19, 2007 as the last version. The project was abandoned and the author was seeking a new maintainer for the project. However, the PHP version has been forked by developers. For downloading the C++ ...

                                     

ⓘ Cascading Style Sheets

Cascading Style Sheets is a style sheet language used for describing the presentation of a document written in a markup language like HTML. CSS is a cornerstone technology of the World Wide Web, alongside HTML and JavaScript.

CSS is designed to enable the separation of presentation and content, including layout, colors, and fonts. This separation can improve content accessibility, provide more flexibility and control in the specification of presentation characteristics, enable multiple web pages to share formatting by specifying the relevant CSS in a separate.css file, and reduce complexity and repetition in the structural content.

Separation of formatting and content also makes it feasible to present the same markup page in different styles for different rendering methods, such as on-screen, in print, by voice via speech-based browser or screen reader, and on Braille-based tactile devices. CSS also has rules for alternate formatting if the content is accessed on a mobile device.

The name cascading comes from the specified priority scheme to determine which style rule applies if more than one rule matches a particular element. This cascading priority scheme is predictable.

The CSS specifications are maintained by the World Wide Web Consortium W3C. Internet media type MIME type text/css is registered for use with CSS by RFC 2318 March 1998. The W3C operates a free CSS validation service for CSS documents.

In addition to HTML, other markup languages support the use of CSS including XHTML, plain XML, SVG, and XUL.

                                     

1. History

CSS was first proposed by Håkon Wium Lie on October 10, 1994. At the time, Lie was working with Tim Berners-Lee at CERN. Several other style sheet languages for the web were proposed around the same time, and discussions on public mailing lists and inside World Wide Web Consortium resulted in the first W3C CSS Recommendation CSS1 being released in 1996. In particular, a proposal by Bert Bos was influential; he became co-author of CSS1, and is regarded as co-creator of CSS.

Style sheets have existed in one form or another since the beginnings of Standard Generalized Markup Language SGML in the 1980s, and CSS was developed to provide style sheets for the web. One requirement for a web style sheet language was for style sheets to come from different sources on the web. Therefore, existing style sheet languages like DSSSL and FOSI were not suitable. CSS, on the other hand, let a documents style be influenced by multiple style sheets by way of "cascading" styles.

As HTML grew, it came to encompass a wider variety of stylistic capabilities to meet the demands of web developers. This evolution gave the designer more control over site appearance, at the cost of more complex HTML. Variations in web browser implementations, such as ViolaWWW and WorldWideWeb, made consistent site appearance difficult, and users had less control over how web content was displayed. The browser/editor developed by Tim Berners-Lee had style sheets that were hard-coded into the program. The style sheets could therefore not be linked to documents on the web. Robert Cailliau, also of CERN, wanted to separate the structure from the presentation so that different style sheets could describe different presentation for printing, screen-based presentations, and editors.

Improving web presentation capabilities was a topic of interest to many in the web community and nine different style sheet languages were proposed on the www-style mailing list. Of these nine proposals, two were especially influential on what became CSS: Cascading HTML Style Sheets and Stream-based Style Sheet Proposal SSP. Two browsers served as testbeds for the initial proposals; Lie worked with Yves Lafon to implement CSS in Dave Raggetts Arena browser. Bert Bos implemented his own SSP proposal in the Argo browser. Thereafter, Lie and Bos worked together to develop the CSS standard the H was removed from the name because these style sheets could also be applied to other markup languages besides HTML.

Lies proposal was presented at the "Mosaic and the Web" conference later called WWW2 in Chicago, Illinois in 1994, and again with Bert Bos in 1995. Around this time the W3C was already being established, and took an interest in the development of CSS. It organized a workshop toward that end chaired by Steven Pemberton. This resulted in W3C adding work on CSS to the deliverables of the HTML editorial review board ERB. Lie and Bos were the primary technical staff on this aspect of the project, with additional members, including Thomas Reardon of Microsoft, participating as well. In August 1996, Netscape Communication Corporation presented an alternative style sheet language called JavaScript Style Sheets JSSS. The spec was never finished, and is deprecated. By the end of 1996, CSS was ready to become official, and the CSS level 1 Recommendation was published in December.

Development of HTML, CSS, and the DOM had all been taking place in one group, the HTML Editorial Review Board ERB. Early in 1997, the ERB was split into three working groups: HTML Working group, chaired by Dan Connolly of W3C; DOM Working group, chaired by Lauren Wood of SoftQuad; and CSS Working group, chaired by Chris Lilley of W3C.

The CSS Working Group began tackling issues that had not been addressed with CSS level 1, resulting in the creation of CSS level 2 on November 4, 1997. It was published as a W3C Recommendation on May 12, 1998. CSS level 3, which was started in 1998, is still under development as of 2014.

In 2005, the CSS Working Groups decided to enforce the requirements for standards more strictly. This meant that already published standards like CSS 2.1, CSS 3 Selectors, and CSS 3 Text were pulled back from Candidate Recommendation to Working Draft level.

                                     

1.1. History Difficulty with adoption

The CSS 1 specification was completed in 1996. Microsofts Internet Explorer 3 was released in that year, featuring some limited support for CSS. IE 4 and Netscape 4.x added more support, but it was typically incomplete and had many bugs that prevented CSS from being usefully adopted. It was more than three years before any web browser achieved near-full implementation of the specification. Internet Explorer 5.0 for the Macintosh, shipped in March 2000, was the first browser to have full better than 99 percent CSS 1 support, surpassing Opera, which had been the leader since its introduction of CSS support fifteen months earlier. Other browsers followed soon afterwards, and many of them additionally implemented parts of CSS 2.

However, even when later version 5 web browsers began to offer a fairly full implementation of CSS, they were still incorrect in certain areas and were fraught with inconsistencies, bugs and other quirks. Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.x for Windows, as opposed to the very different IE for Macintosh, had a flawed implementation of the CSS box model, as compared with the CSS standards. Such inconsistencies and variation in feature support made it difficult for designers to achieve a consistent appearance across browsers and platforms without the use of workarounds termed CSS hacks and filters. The IE/Windows box model bugs were so serious that, when Internet Explorer 6 was released, Microsoft introduced a backwards-compatible mode of CSS interpretation quirks mode alongside an alternative, corrected standards mode. Other non-Microsoft browsers also provided such mode-switch behavior capability. It therefore became necessary for authors of HTML files to ensure they contained special distinctive standards-compliant CSS intended marker to show that the authors intended CSS to be interpreted correctly, in compliance with standards, as opposed to being intended for the now long-obsolete IE5/Windows browser. Without this marker, web browsers that have the quirks mode-switching capability will size objects in web pages as IE5/Windows would rather than following CSS standards.

Problems with patchy adoption of CSS, along with errata in the original specification, led the W3C to revise the CSS 2 standard into CSS 2.1, which moved nearer to a working snapshot of current CSS support in HTML browsers. Some CSS 2 properties that no browser successfully implemented were dropped, and in a few cases, defined behaviors were changed to bring the standard into line with the predominant existing implementations. CSS 2.1 became a Candidate Recommendation on February 25, 2004, but CSS 2.1 was pulled back to Working Draft status on June 13, 2005, and only returned to Candidate Recommendation status on July 19, 2007.

In addition to these problems, the.css extension was used by a software product used to convert PowerPoint files into Compact Slide Show files, so some web servers served all.css as MIME type application/x-pointplus rather than text/css.

                                     

1.2. History Variations

CSS has various levels and profiles. Each level of CSS builds upon the last, typically adding new features and typically denoted as CSS 1, CSS 2, CSS 3, and CSS 4. Profiles are typically a subset of one or more levels of CSS built for a particular device or user interface. Currently there are profiles for mobile devices, printers, and television sets. Profiles should not be confused with media types, which were added in CSS 2.

                                     

1.3. History CSS 1

The first CSS specification to become an official W3C Recommendation is CSS level 1, published on December 17, 1996. Håkon Wium Lie and Bert Bos are credited as the original developers. Among its capabilities are support for

  • Unique identification and generic classification of groups of attributes
  • Text attributes such as spacing between words, letters, and lines of text
  • Margin, border, padding, and positioning for most elements
  • Color of text, backgrounds, and other elements
  • Font properties such as typeface and emphasis
  • Alignment of text, images, tables and other elements

The W3C no longer maintains the CSS 1 Recommendation.

                                     

1.4. History CSS 2

CSS level 2 specification was developed by the W3C and published as a recommendation in May 1998. A superset of CSS 1, CSS 2 includes a number of new capabilities like absolute, relative, and fixed positioning of elements and z-index, the concept of media types, support for aural style sheets which were later replaced by the CSS 3 speech modules and bidirectional text, and new font properties such as shadows.

The W3C no longer maintains the CSS 2 recommendation.

                                     

1.5. History CSS 2.1

CSS level 2 revision 1, often referred to as "CSS 2.1", fixes errors in CSS 2, removes poorly supported or not fully interoperable features and adds already implemented browser extensions to the specification. To comply with the W3C Process for standardizing technical specifications, CSS 2.1 went back and forth between Working Draft status and Candidate Recommendation status for many years. CSS 2.1 first became a Candidate Recommendation on February 25, 2004, but it was reverted to a Working Draft on June 13, 2005 for further review. It returned to Candidate Recommendation on 19 July 2007 and then updated twice in 2009. However, because changes and clarifications were made, it again went back to Last Call Working Draft on 7 December 2010.

CSS 2.1 went to Proposed Recommendation on 12 April 2011. After being reviewed by the W3C Advisory Committee, it was finally published as a W3C Recommendation on 7 June 2011.

CSS 2.1 was planned as the first and final revision of level 2 - but low priority work on CSS 2.2 began in 2015.



                                     

1.6. History CSS 3

Unlike CSS 2, which is a large single specification defining various features, CSS 3 is divided into several separate documents called "modules". Each module adds new capabilities or extends features defined in CSS 2, preserving backward compatibility. Work on CSS level 3 started around the time of publication of the original CSS 2 recommendation. The earliest CSS 3 drafts were published in June 1999.

Due to the modularization, different modules have different stability and statuses.

Some modules have Candidate Recommendation CR status and are considered moderately stable. At CR stage, implementations are advised to drop vendor prefixes.

                                     

1.7. History CSS 4

There is no single, integrated CSS4 specification, because the specification has been split into many separate modules which level independently.

Modules that build on things from CSS Level 2 started at Level 3. Some of them have already reached Level 4 or are already approaching Level 5. Other modules that define entirely new functionality, such as Flexbox, have been designated as Level 1 and some of them are approaching Level 2.

The CSS Working Group sometimes publishes "Snapshots", a collection of whole modules and parts of other drafts that are considered stable enough to be implemented by browser developers. So far, five such "best current practices" documents have been published as Notes, in 2007, 2010, 2015, 2017, and 2018.

Since these specification snapshots are primarily intended for developers, there has been growing demand for as similar versioned reference document targeted at authors, which would present the state of interoperable implementations as meanwhile documented by sites like Can I Use… and the Mozilla Developer Network. A W3C Community Group has been established in early 2020 in order to discuss and define such a resource. The actual kind of versioning is also up to debate, which means that the document once produced might not be called "CSS4".



                                     

2. Browser support

Each web browser uses a layout engine to render web pages, and support for CSS functionality is not consistent between them. Because browsers do not parse CSS perfectly, multiple coding techniques have been developed to target specific browsers with workarounds commonly known as CSS hacks or CSS filters. Adoption of new functionality in CSS can be hindered by lack of support in major browsers. For example, Internet Explorer was slow to add support for many CSS 3 features, which slowed adoption of those features and damaged the browsers reputation among developers. In order to ensure a consistent experience for their users, web developers often test their sites across multiple operating systems, browsers, and browser versions, increasing development time and complexity. Tools such as BrowserStack have been built to reduce the complexity of maintaining these environments.

In addition to these testing tools, many sites maintain lists of browser support for specific CSS properties, including CanIUse and the Mozilla Developer Network. Additionally, the CSS 3 defines feature queries, which provide an supports directive that will allow developers to target browsers with support for certain functionality directly within their CSS. CSS that is not supported by older browsers can also sometimes be patched in using JavaScript polyfills, which are pieces of JavaScript code designed to make browsers behave consistently. These workarounds - and the need to support fallback functionality - can add complexity to development projects, and consequently, companies frequently define a list of browser versions that they will and will not support.

As websites adopt newer code standards that are incompatible with older browsers, these browsers can be cut off from accessing many of the resources on the web sometimes intentionally. Many of the most popular sites on the internet are not just visually degraded on older browsers due to poor CSS support, but do not work at all, in large part due to the evolution of JavaScript and other web technologies.



                                     

3. Limitations

Some noted limitations of the current capabilities of CSS include:

Selectors are unable to ascend CSS currently offers no way to select a parent or ancestor of an element that satisfies certain criteria. CSS Selectors Level 4, which is still in Working Draft status, proposes such a selector, but only as part of the "complete" selector profile, not the "fast" profile used in dynamic CSS styling. A more advanced selector scheme such as XPath would enable more sophisticated style sheets. The major reasons for the CSS Working Group previously rejecting proposals for parent selectors are related to browser performance and incremental rendering issues. Cannot explicitly declare new scope independently of position Scoping rules for properties such as z-index look for the closest parent element with a position:absolute or position:relative attribute. This odd coupling has undesired effects. For example, it is impossible to avoid declaring a new scope when one is forced to adjust an elements position, preventing one from using the desired scope of a parent element. Pseudo-class dynamic behavior not controllable CSS implements pseudo-classes that allow a degree of user feedback by conditional application of alternate styles. One CSS pseudo-class, ": hover ", is dynamic equivalent of JavaScript "onmouseover" and has potential for abuse e.g., implementing cursor-proximity popups, but CSS has no ability for a client to disable it no "disable"-like property or limit its effects no "nochange"-like values for each property. Cannot name rules There is no way to name a CSS rule, which would allow for example client-side scripts to refer to the rule even if its selector changes. Cannot include styles from a rule into another rule CSS styles often must be duplicated in several rules to achieve a desired effect, causing additional maintenance and requiring more thorough testing. Some new CSS features were proposed to solve this, but as of February, 2016 are not yet implemented anywhere. Cannot target specific text without altering markup Besides the: first-letter pseudo-element, one cannot target specific ranges of text without needing to utilize place-holder elements.


                                     

3.1. Limitations Former issues

Additionally, several more issues were present in prior versions of the CSS standard, but have been alleviated:

Vertical control limitations Though horizontal placement of elements was always generally easy to control, vertical placement was frequently unintuitive, convoluted, or outright impossible. Simple tasks, such as centering an element vertically or placing a footer no higher than bottom of the viewport required either complicated and unintuitive style rules, or simple but widely unsupported rules. The Flexible Box Module improved the situation considerably and vertical control is much more straightforward and supported in all of the modern browsers. Older browsers still have those issues, but most of those mainly Internet Explorer 9 and below are no longer supported by their vendors. Absence of expressions There was no standard ability to specify property values as simple expressions such as margin-left: 10 % – 3em + 4px ;. This would be useful in a variety of cases, such as calculating the size of columns subject to a constraint on the sum of all columns. Internet Explorer versions 5 to 7 support a proprietary expression statement, with similar functionality. This proprietary expression statement is no longer supported from Internet Explorer 8 onwards, except in compatibility modes. This decision was taken for "standards compliance, browser performance, and security reasons". However, a candidate recommendation with a calc value to address this limitation has been published by the CSS WG and has since been supported in all of the modern browsers. Lack of column declaration Although possible in current CSS 3 using the column-count module, layouts with multiple columns can be complex to implement in CSS 2.1. With CSS 2.1, the process is often done using floating elements, which are often rendered differently by different browsers, different computer screen shapes, and different screen ratios set on standard monitors. All of the modern browsers support this CSS 3 feature in one form or another.
                                     

4. Advantages

Separation of content from presentation CSS facilitates publication of content in multiple presentation formats based on nominal parameters. Nominal parameters include explicit user preferences, different web browsers, the type of device being used to view the content a desktop computer or mobile device, the geographic location of the user and many other variables. Site-wide consistency When CSS is used effectively, in terms of inheritance and "cascading", a global style sheet can be used to affect and style elements site-wide. If the situation arises that the styling of the elements should be changed or adjusted, these changes can be made by editing rules in the global style sheet. Before CSS, this sort of maintenance was more difficult, expensive and time-consuming. Bandwidth A stylesheet, internal or external, specifies the style once for a range of HTML elements selected by class, type or relationship to others. This is much more efficient than repeating style information inline for each occurrence of the element. An external stylesheet is usually stored in the browser cache, and can therefore be used on multiple pages without being reloaded, further reducing data transfer over a network. Page reformatting With a simple change of one line, a different style sheet can be used for the same page. This has advantages for accessibility, as well as providing the ability to tailor a page or site to different target devices. Furthermore, devices not able to understand the styling still display the content. Accessibility Without CSS, web designers must typically lay out their pages with techniques such as HTML tables that hinder accessibility for vision-impaired users see Tableless web design#Accessibility.


                                     

5.1. Standardization Frameworks

CSS frameworks are pre-prepared libraries that are meant to allow for easier, more standards-compliant styling of web pages using the Cascading Style Sheets language. CSS frameworks include Foundation, Blueprint, Bootstrap, Cascade Framework and Materialize. Like programming and scripting language libraries, CSS frameworks are usually incorporated as external.css sheets referenced in the HTML < head >. They provide a number of ready-made options for designing and laying out the web page. Although many of these frameworks have been published, some authors use them mostly for rapid prototyping, for learning from, and prefer to handcraft CSS that is appropriate to each published site without the design, maintenance and download overhead of having many unused features in the sites styling.

                                     

5.2. Standardization Design methodologies

As the size of CSS resources used in a project increases, a development team often needs to decide on a common design methodology to keep them organized. The goals are ease of development, ease of collaboration during development and performance of the deployed stylesheets in the browser. Popular methodologies include OOCSS object oriented CSS, ACSS atomic CSS, oCSS organic Cascade Style Sheet, SMACSS scalable and modular architecture for CSS, and BEM.