

CSS: The Good Parts - sonic0002
http://pixelstech.net/article/index.php?id=1336105527

======
iron_ball
The original article is here: <http://www.impressivewebs.com/css-the-bad-
parts/>

I don't know if this was blogspam or what.

~~~
namzo
I think you meant <http://www.impressivewebs.com/css-the-good-parts/>

Edit: I noticed that both articles have the same author.

~~~
iron_ball
Good catch, yes I did! I was typing that on my phone, and had the wrong thing
in my paste buffer. Both articles are worth reading though.

------
lucian1900
I had expected a small, opinionated book on CSS.

Instead, there's a decent article.

~~~
loeschg
Same. I gleaned quite a few little tid-bits from this article. I started
reading and was able to branch off with the provided links to get more in-
depth information.

------
leephillips
A good article with useful links, as was his "bad parts" article. But I'm
puzzled by his complaint about CSS commenting style. In Vim, using the
tcomment plugin, I can comment out whole or partial lines with a few
keystrokes, in many languages, and Vim knows what language is in the buffer
and uses the correct comment syntax, so I don't even need to remember it.
Other editors and plugins have similar functionality. It sounds like the
author is commenting/uncommenting by hand. As is so often the case, using the
right editing tools makes your life better.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
Having a tool to make something easier is one thing. But the commenting style
complaint is valid. I am not puzzled by the complaint. It would be nice to
have it work as he described so you would not have to rely on the tool to be
there.

------
ender7
Note that attribute selectors have really terribad performance on complex
pages; avoid them if you're writing a single-page web app.

(actually, most things have terribad performance on complex pages, including
inheritance selectors, :nth-child, sibling selectors, and tag selectors.
Basically, the only selectors that are fast in CSS are IDs and classes with no
inheritance. Wooo.)

~~~
acdha
That statement is too broad to be correct: modern browsers have had work
optimizing selector performance (see [http://calendar.perfplanet.com/2011/css-
selector-performance...](http://calendar.perfplanet.com/2011/css-selector-
performance-has-changed-for-the-better/)) and you really need to measure
before drawing conclusions, particularly when the alternative of cargo-culting
less semantic, harder to maintain code has its own costs and doesn't get as
much performance attention as browsers do.

Since there are are now CSS profilers for Chrome, WebKit and Opera (see
[http://perfectionkills.com/profiling-css-for-fun-and-
profit-...](http://perfectionkills.com/profiling-css-for-fun-and-profit-
optimization-notes/)) you can also make the better comparison: your actual
site.

Examples: [http://stevesouders.com/efws/css-
selectors/csscreate.php?n=1...](http://stevesouders.com/efws/css-
selectors/csscreate.php?n=1000&sel=div\[id\]+%3E+a&body=background%3A+%23CFD&ne=1000)
[http://stevesouders.com/efws/css-
selectors/csscreate.php?n=1...](http://stevesouders.com/efws/css-
selectors/csscreate.php?n=1000&sel=div+%3E+a&body=background%3A+%23CFD&ne=1000)
[http://stevesouders.com/efws/css-
selectors/csscreate.php?n=1...](http://stevesouders.com/efws/css-
selectors/csscreate.php?n=1000&sel=div%5Bid%5D+a&body=background%3A+%23CFD&ne=1000)
[http://stevesouders.com/efws/css-
selectors/csscreate.php?n=1...](http://stevesouders.com/efws/css-
selectors/csscreate.php?n=1000&sel=div+a&body=background%3A+%23CFD&ne=1000)

All four are very close in time in Chrome and Firefox - within 10ms or so. In
all permutations of this, what really makes the most difference continues to
be the question of how quickly the browser can narrow the set of nodes under
consideration, which usually comes down to how well your markup makes
expressing relationships natural rather than syntax tricks.

------
stroebjo
Quick and dirty one-line comments should be used very carefully. Before a
block it can break the selector, so no styles get applied.

------
logical42
not a very long list i see..

