MSEdgeExplainers VS css-modules

The spec is a W3C CSS working group draft: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-anchor-position-1/

It looks like less of a Chrome thing and more of an Edge thing? The Intent to Prototype [1] links to an Edge explainer [2] with Microsoft authors. It doesn't look like anyone has asked Mozilla for a position yet [3] but I expect if they get positive signals from web developers (us!) that will be soon.

[1] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/vsPdd...

[2] https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/...

[3] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues?q=anch...

Read the explainer here

You can learn more about Focus Mode in this Edge explainer document.

For a spec about a browser feature, "getting it" can mean a few different things.

1. Understanding the purpose of the feature ("why/when would I use this?")

2. Understanding how to implement the feature

3. Understanding how to use the feature

4. Understanding the feature's "corner cases" (surprising implications, cases where it doesn't do what you'd expect, etc.)

5. Understanding why the feature works the way it does (instead of some other way)

Most of the web specs really only explain how to implement a feature, and even then, they're not great at that, because they do such a poor job at explaining the purpose of the feature.

Assuming that you, like most of us, aren't working on implementing a browser, that means that web specs are mostly unhelpful to you. It's almost completely beyond the purpose of a spec to teach you how to use a feature, what its corner cases would be (which are often unknown at the time a spec was written), and why the specification says what it says.

This is an area where the web spec community has made some improvements in recent years. Nowadays, it's understood that new proposed specifications shouldn't just provide a specification, but also a separate "explainer" document, whose purpose is to communicate #1 (the purpose of the feature), and also persuade the other browser vendors to implement the feature. ("This will be really cool, and here's why…")

At a minimum, specs nowadays often include a non-normative "Motivation" section, as the CSS Nesting spec does. https://www.w3.org/TR/css-nesting-1/ I you'll find that you can "get" that spec much better than you can the CSS OM spec https://www.w3.org/TR/cssom-1/ which is old enough to buy alcohol and doesn't include a "Motivation" section.

You can often find explainer docs linked off of https://chromestatus.com/ e.g. https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/... I think you'll find that explainers are 10000% better for learning features than specs are. (They typically even discuss #3, #4, and #5, as they typically discuss alternative rejected approaches.)

Transparent ads are enabled through ad providers joining the Transparent Ads Provider program. More info on the program and the requirements for providers here - https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/TransparentAds/Program-Overview.md

Not necessarily for a Swift project, but your experience makes me wonder about the current web API for highlighting spans of text.

https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/...

Complicated...

One aspect of CSS modules that I truly appreciate is its ability to compress class names into very short hashes. This feature allows me to keep my CSS selectors as long and descriptive as needed, while still compressing them into concise three or four character hashes. It aligns with my rule for CSS: selectors should be written for human readability, but compressed for machine efficiency.

Use methodologies such as BEM, and technologies including CSS modules, CSS-in-JS, and Shadow DOM to isolate the styles of each micro-application and prevent conflicts, thus ensuring reliable encapsulation and modularity.

For many years, Culture Amp took the second option, and distributed shared components without compiled CSS. This meant that every app that consumed shared components needed to include the necessary CSS build tooling – at that time CSS Modules and node-sass – with a compatible version and configuration. This was relatively easy to set up, but over time proved difficult to maintain. When node-sass was deprecated in favour of (the much faster but slightly incompatible) Dart Sass, this demanded a difficult lock-step migration across all those codebases, which we have yet to achieve. And as new applications have switched to Tailwind for their own styles, they've had to continue to maintain those old build tools in parallel for the shared components' styles.

So CSS modules are a form of 3rd-party CSS-in-JS, where what you import are the class names, which are then usually obfuscated etc at compile time, and all the actual style declarations are (usually) compiled into a single css file or tag as part of the bundling process. You can read the og docs on'em here, and you've probably seen'em used in React like:

import styles from "./styles.css";

function Example(){
    return (
        

            Hello
        
    );
}

They predate the ability to import non-js files in vanilla by a good while, and rely on the compile process to translate your .css files into .js files that can be imported using whichever loader you use in your bundler.

Import assertions are a vanilla way to import non-js files by telling the browser how to import them; assert { type: "css" } says to treat the file as CSS and create a CSSStyleSheet, assert { type: "json" } says to treat the file as JSON and create a JSON object - and hopefully assert { type: "html" } will hopefully arrive soon and create a #document-fragment or something similar.

Hope that clears it up!

Extensions of CSS: for example, Sass, Less, Tailwind, CSS Modules, to make stuff look a certain way on your own.

The components are styled with CSS modules. When building the library, these styles will get transformed to normal CSS style sheets. This means that the consuming application will not even be required to support CSS modules. (In the future I want to extend this tutorial to use vanilla-extract instead.)

NextJS comes with built-in support for CSS Modules which allows you to scope your styles locally in individual components without worrying about name collisions or messing up other parts of the codebase.

CSS modules are not to be confused with mixins, as they serve the opposite purpose. While mixins are components or functions to be reused globally, modules are style sheets with a local scope used in a similar way as styled components in React.

CSS Modules CSS Modules is a pre-processing step: by default, styles are scoped locally to the current component, and the transpiler ensures no conflicts.