csswg-drafts VS open-props

For more background, and some detailed discussion of the opposite argument ("display: masonry" over "display:grid"+"grid-template-rows: masonry") see https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9041

The tracking issue: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8659

As noted there, okHSL/HSV keeps the perceptual uniformity by removing some peaks beyond the geometric limit of HSL/HSV, and it is unclear whether it is what users do expect or not.

The idea is that you should be able to set accent color via accent-color CSS property. It is discussed that there should be access to the color value of this property, e.g. via AccentColor or AccentColorText.

What do you mean by "official documentation"? The specification [1]? MDN [2]?

[1] https://drafts.csswg.org/

[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS

The former is not meant as a learning resource for new web devs and the latter usually has information about the "baseline" support ond browser compatibility tables.

The link corresponding to the actual submission title (“CSS WG resolved to officially work on native custom functions and mixins”):

https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9350#issuecomment...

> RESOLVED: Start ED of css-mixins for CSS Custom Functions and Mixins

Recently I was reading the Learn CSS the pedantic way book and the definition for inline boxes did not match the way that anonymous block boxes were generated when an inline-level element had a block-level element as its child. So I went looking elsewhere for a more appropriate definition for that case and found this issue on standards: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1477 It was really interesting to know that I was not the only one confused. My question was: Does the inline-box generated by the inline-level element contains the box generated by the block-level child or there wasn't an inline-box that was a parent of them all but there were 2 siblings inline-level boxes of the block-level box that were wrapped in another anonymous block boxes? Reading that issue I got to know the concept of fragments, which I did not know browsers had. But the issue seems to suggest that the box tree for this case should have the inline-box as being a parent of the block-box. Which led me to another question, in that case, if I apply a border to the parent inline-level element, shouldn't it apply to the overall box that is generated (it does not)? The answer is that borders between block-boxes and inline-level boxes should not intersect but that is really difficult to derive from reading the standards alone. Anyway it was headache-inducing trying to learn the box-model pedantically :)

With all the recent CSS improvements I still miss the possibility to have working transition to "height:auto". The issue [1] on csswg-drafts is the most upvoted one. At least we can now use css grid and track sizes transitions, but it's far from intuitive, transition for "height:auto" should just work.

[1]: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/626

Masonry isn’t ready to be shipped as there are still quite a few open spec issues [^1] that need to be resolved first.

[^1]: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3...

the irc log is here: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7542#issuecomment...

i had the same reaction, it seems like a very weird syntax. but after reading the discussion i get it: you're telling a form field to behave like a normal html element, instead of behaving like a form field.

There's still some boilerplate, but I'm a big fan of Open Props[0] because it takes a hybrid approach. CSS isn't necessarily reinventing the wheel, but allowing for easier / more powerful approaches to difficult layouts or things that would otherwise require JS. Bootstrap is fine but troubleshooting advanced layout issues involves a lot of inspecting elements to see what styles are actually being applied (at least in my experience, YMMV) so I'd personally always bet on CSS.

[0] https://open-props.style/

I don't quite get the hate for having CSS in another file. Do you also put all your react stuff in one single file ? That same logic and argument can be applied against all modularization.

And really 20-50 tailwind classes in a single element is VERY hard to read and keep in mind. No - it does not make things clear or understandable. One tends to need to re-read and scan over from the beginning and eyes glaze over. Esp if some elements only vary with a few classes missing. I guess it works for people with very high attention to detail and high amount of working memory. I only find it personally frustrating.

Maybe tailwind css works for some bright people. I did try it for a couple of projects and only felt pain.

However, the "atomic css" philosophy behind tailwind is great. I find framewroks like https://open-props.style/ far better to use.

Open Props adds to the set by providing extra custom properties for things like easing functions or animations.

> If you wanted to actually solve theming, what you should work for is not a constrained helper function like light-dark(), but instead a shared token schema. Today nearly every company has their own token schema and different ways of naming things in the semantic token layer. If we had a shard language here, not only would it be trivial to add light/dark theming (just redefine a few variables that are already provided for you), code could be shared between sites and inherit the theming/branding.

Isn't that the idea behind https://open-props.style/ (and https://theme-ui.com/ in JS land)?

I think it's a great idea, but hampered by the lack of adoption incentives for the very people that need to adopt it for it to become successful (design system/component library authors). It introduces constraints, but the promised interoperability is not really beneficial to the people who need to work within those constraints.

I do think that the real value of Tailwind comes from the utility classes, rather than css-in-html paradigm. You could achieve the same, for example, with Pollen.css [0] or Open Props [1].

[0] https://github.com/heybokeh/pollen

[1] https://github.com/argyleink/open-props

If you choose to style with plain CSS you can add design tokens as CSS variables with Open Props: https://open-props.style.

Some time ago I discovered Open Props which provides a lot of design tokens as CSS variables and started using it in some of my projects.

CSS: Open Props (https://open-props.style/)

https://open-props.style/ gives you design tokens as CSS variables. It’s CSS only and not Svelte specific.