Talk:Cascading Style Sheets/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Spam links to removed

User:Yurik has recently made changes to all the code examples in this article, which on the face of it look quite nice. On the other hand, in doing so s/he has also magically created dozens of hyperlinks to a web site at

I propose that, whether or not that was the main purpose of the colour-scheming, it should be reverted asap, and so have done so. If it were possible to have the coloured syntax highlighting without the commercial spam, then I'd be happy with it. Equally, if the links were to the relevant articles with WP, or even to the non-commercial international standards pages at --Nigelj 17:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Being a dev of mediawiki, i obviously did not want any spam links :). This is an unneeded feature of the syntax highlighting plugin, and we should address it for the entire wiki, rather than removing it here. Once the main plugin settings are fixed, all such links will disappear. In the mean time, i will put it back as its visual benefits clearly outweigh the almost invisible junk links that will be soon removed. --Yurik 18:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Bug entered at --Yurik 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Please, add to CSS-file "Justify" for the all texts. You must to see not have to think.)) A Wiki isn't place of text-garbages. We can to do nice for the readers.

Column (typography)

Would anyone be interested in expanding and sourcing content for Column (typography), specifically the section on web layout? Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

CSS commands list

There should be at least an external link to a list of all (or most) CSS commands. Please add it. --DorTheScripter 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several such links in the article already. ¦ Reisio 04:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Where? AirplaneProRadio 19:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The spec itself? mabdul 19:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Doing quite a bit of work on this article right now. Main thing is trying to refocus it away from teaching people the language. Chris Cunningham 12:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see no discussion and no consensus here. Apart from your confusing use of two names (Thumperward or Chris Cunningham depending whether you are editing or discussing your own edits) and your instruction to Czert to "Feel free to remove anything you like from it", I wonder just why you have decided single-handedly to dumb down the article in this way. It is not in order to add more referenced material: on 16 July there were eight references, now there are nine. What you have done is remove all the carefully chosen examples that demystified CSS scripting, showing its capabilities and its shortcomings and you did this with helpful edit summaries like, "more example killing", mostly during the single day 18th July.
If you don't have some pretty good justifications for each major deletion, backed up with a WP policy that says that technical articles should not include examples, I believe that many of these should be reverted back in. --Nigelj 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not meant to be a how-to reference, and this was little but. I'm trying to get the article into a state where a reader who was looking to find out what CSS was and what it is used for can comfortably read it and go away informed, rather than aiming the article at would-be Web authors who need to grep for example code. The "referenced material", a set of tutorials, was much of the same. if you feel that this information was of more use here than the dozen or so introductory guides to CSS it was mostly taken from, then please help the Wikibooks project out by taking the advice of template:howto and moving it over there. As for my user name, I'd rather tag my personal comment with my real name, and I don't feel this is a massive mental burden on my fellow Wikipedians. Chris Cunningham 20:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree that removing the examples makes this a less useful article. It is good for the introduction to say what CSS is, and what it is used for, but examples are appropriate not to teach the language, but to help give a technical understanding. Saying that CSS is used to encode web style is not useful for people who would like to understand how it works internally. Without the examples, readers will only gain a superfluous understanding of the language, rather than a technical understanding, which is appropriate to Wikipedia.
If you are unhappy with your username, perhaps you should change it. Your inconsistancy makes it impossible to tell that the editor and the commenter are the same person without editing. 20:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The link can be found by hovering over my signature. I've been mulling over a full user name change, but that's beside the point of this discussion. I am not opposed to the idea of including examples in the article. What I am opposed to is Nigelj's assertion that these "major deletions" which "dumb down the article" should be "reverted back in". I feel that those who wish to add examples would be better off starting again rather than by restoring poorly-written content in a blanket fashion. Chris Cunningham 10:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A first-time reader's two cents: I would really appreciate having as many examples as possible. I think for many people, specific examples help them to learn a concept. I like to see examples from which I can then generalize. I understand things much more quickly this way. Thanks. --Paul Gentry (not logged in) 15:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, another first time reader's two cents: I would enjoy as many examples as possible too. I came to the wiki to learn about how I could apply CSS, and some examples of it. I use wikipedia on many different topics, this is actually the first one I feel didn't really give me a good understanding. Now you can criticize me if you like...but I'm a pretty good example of your audience. It sounds like the examples would have helped me grasp it a bit more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Me, three. I'm planning a comprehensive list of CSS properties, and how the relate to HTML. If it gets removed too many times, I'll move it to my own website, but I know of no rule saying Wikipedia should not be a reference source.
Stop me, though, if there actually is such a rule. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd say thats something for Wikibooks, not Wikipedia itself. Would be nice to actually get infos how to link to a CSS file within a HTML document, tho. --Darth NormaN (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there a link to Wikibooks? And can we have a few examples here in addition to such a link? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Complicated Precedence Rules as a Limitation?

I can't see how precedence rules can be a limitation just because they are complicated. Some mechanisms need to be complicated in order to be effective. --Czert 11:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That whole section needs entirely redone using some actual sources. Feel free to remove anything you like from it. Chris Cunningham 12:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


I changed the formatting of the first two items to match the rest of the items in the section. I removed a third item because it did not seem to be a limitation of CSS:

  • Although the CSS standards have been in place for years, websites using CSS layout have been slow to catch on with many webmasters who have not found the need (or desire) to update their sites with the latest standards.

Ryan 09:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this section necessary at all? From my point of view, it is highly subjective while also (at least partially) being addressed by current work on CSS. It barely seems to help, instead it might mislead people ("look CSS is so limited"). (Several sub topics like for example print styles could probably use some attention instead.) --K. 09:00, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I think the section is relevant, but it's very true that current work is addressing most of these issues. I would like to add more information on this, but I'm uncertain how to do it. Lots of Wikipedia sections on "Criticism" read like the stalemate of an edit war, and I'd like to avoid that. Here's the gist of what I want to add:
Poor controls for flexible layouts
Flexbox and Grid Layout addresses this in a fundamental way. [1] [2] (Admittedly, Grid is a bit further out and may not merit mention.) The claim about WYSIWYG editors being held back should really have been cited by the original author, but he/she could be thinking of BlueGriffon or some Adobe product.
Selectors are unable to ascend
 :matches() in Selectors 4 addresses most uses. [3] (Today's draft doesn't because it is limited to compound selectors, but there's a proposed change to let it refer to any selector.)
Vertical control limitations
Flexbox addresses this too.
Absence of expressions
calc() is already implemented in Firefox and IE 9, though not yet formally standardized. [4]
Lack of column declaration
With the multicol spec maturing and implemented in all major browsers as of IE 10, this is becoming increasingly outdated as criticism. I suppose it could be kept until formal standardization or IE 10's release. [5]
Cannot explicitly declare new scope independently of position
Nothing new here, though it is discussed from time to time.
Pseudo-class dynamic behavior not controllable
Nothing new. I confess I've never heard of this one. I doubt it's within the scope of CSS to prevent this kind of thing, since JavaScript always can work around any limitations we set.

Leif Arne Storset 09:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

New Resource

The book "Professional CSS, Cascading Style Sheets for Web Design" written by Christopher Schmitt, Mark Trammell, Ethan Marcotte, Dunstan Orchard and Todd Dominey is a wonderful book authored by some of the masters. Do you think I could possibly add it to the CSS resources list? You can check it's web site out at

Pcboy 21:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


  • Complexity

For larger sites, style sheets can grow to become extremely long and complex making editing and overall site management somewhat more difficult and tedious than if a basic table layout were used.

As complex and large as Wikipedia's website, it's mostly CSS layout. Table layout does not make it any easier to manage.

Wordhunter 17:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wordhunter is quite right. I designed my first few websites using table layouts, and I can quite assure that CSS stylesheets, when properly managed, can drastically ease the managing process. And if your stylesheets do get unmanageably long, split the code up over two external documents. Nothing complex about it. :-) Pcboy 16:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Removed. Thanks for catching this. Chris Cunningham 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Float containment

... Generally, either "position: relative" or "overflow: hidden"[21] solves this. ...

This is incorrect, position:relative has no effect on float containment or float clearing (which are really different things). All values of overflow, excepting the default value, visible and position:absolute will contain floats. A later (in flow) element or pseudo element with the clear property can be used to force a float container to surround the float by ensuring it surrounds the cleared element. Fwiw, position:relative can be used to correct stacking issues in older versions of internet explorer (pre 7) which can affect the display of floats. Those same older versions of internet explorer can also contain floats via the proprietory "hasLayout" feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Poor controls for flexible layouts
While new additions to CSS3 provide a stronger, more robust feature-set for layout, CSS is still at heart a styling language (for fonts, colours, borders and other decoration), not a layout language (for blocks with positions, sizes, margins, and so on). These limitations mean that creating fluid layouts generally requires hand-coding of CSS, and has held back the development of a standards-based WYSIWYG editor.

This is ill-informed and misleading, there are thousands of sophisticated fluid layouts created in pure CSS on the Web. All professional web designers code CSS "by hand", so the lack of WYSIWYG tools is irrelevant. The CSS spec includes a large number of layout rules (position, width, height, margin, padding, float, display, etc.), so the first sentence is wrong too. This point should be removed. Rssaddict (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The statement "CSS is still at heart a styling language (for fonts, colours, borders and other decoration), not a layout language (for blocks with positions, sizes, margins, and so on)." could be rewritten as "CSS is still at heart a styling language and it's controls for styling (fonts, colours, borders and other decoration) are more flexible than its controls for layout (for blocks with positions, sizes, margins, and so on).". This would remove the implication that CSS has no layout controls from the original. The statement "These limitations mean that creating fluid layouts generally requires hand-coding of CSS" is true and accurate and I don't see why it should be removed. That it has "has held back the development of a standards-based WYSIWYG editor" is a statement that needs further evidence. Atetlaw (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


The article says "CSS style information can be either attached as a separate document or embedded in the HTML document," but there is nothing here about the relative priority given to the different places where style information can be attached. That is, there is really nothing here about the cascading aspect of Cascading Style Sheets.

For example, says "Any embedded CSS command will over-ride an external CSS command of the same tag," but I know there are other rules besides that, and I also don't think that site looks like a citable source.

If I had the right sources to cite offhand, I'd write something, but as it happens I came here hoping to look it up. My guess is that someone involved in working on this page knows and could easily add this. - Jmabel | Talk 19:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Eric A. Meyer's book CSS: The Definitive Guide (ISBN: 978-0-596-52733-4) has a chapter called "Structure and the Cascade" which describes the cascading behaviour of CSS quite well. TheCycoONE (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Useless sentence?

I'm a first-time reader of this article, attempting to learn something about CSS, and as such, I find the following sentence in the Syntax section to be practically meaningless:

"A pseudo-class selects entire elements, such as :link or :visited, whereas a pseudo-element makes a selection that may consist of partial elements, such as :first-line or :first-letter."

I re-read this sentence 5 times to make sure that I wasn't just missing something. I'm not sure what is meant by "entire element" vs. "partial element" and this is not explained in the article above this sentence. Perhaps it was explained in some prior version. I think an example in the Syntax section would help out HUGELY (or at the least, a BNF version of the syntax, although the lay-person would probably not understand that). I noticed on this discussion page that some examples have been removed from this page. If there was one here, please put it back in! Examples are enormously helpful for understanding the topic. Remember, if you're an expert on a topic, that most likely impedes your ability to decide what is useful for the first-time reader (and therefore, the material that should appear at the beginning of the article). Thanks. -- Paul Gentry (not logged in) 15:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to add in an example, however I'd need to seriously sandbox it as I'm pretty unfamiliar with writing code in a wiki. The example I'm thinking of is, use an anchor getting a colour change for the "entire element" pseudoclass, and the first-word of a paragraph getting a colour change rather than the entire paragraph for the "partial element" one. (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

General style and tone

Lack of basics

What program is used to create a file with css extension? Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Any text editor. CSS files are just plaintext files, with a .css file extension, so no need for any sort of specialised program. (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

New Resources

Would you be willing to add to your list of Resources? You have a great set of resources on your site and I know you will be very impressed with our free tutorial, written by us.Jthurber (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just added CSS Tutorial - not in-depth but comprehensive and concise, e.g. a good cheat-sheet for developers of templates. Also has "try it out" pages. N.B. I am not affiliated with in any way, aand I've been using it as a cheat sheet for years. Philcha (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is CSS a programming language?

The Wikibook about CSS is called 'CSS Programming', but I really don't think CSS is a language. Does it "define and manipulate data structures or control the flow of execution"[6]? This article doesn't really clarify it, and although I'm not sure that it really needs to, it seems that there might be some confusion out there. Should something be added to the article? —Sam Wilson (Australia) (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a programming language, but it is a style sheet language, a genre of computer language that simply styles and wires visual content such as text and images together. They're also trying to add more capabilities to CSS that were previously carried out by scripting languages (especially JavaScript) and older markup languages (like Netscape-era proprietary HTML tags such as <blink></blink>), including animation. However, the animation capability that they're adding to CSS is dependent to an extent on the :hover tag (where you move your mouse over the element), which makes it pseudo-executable, but not dynamically manipulative of data like scripting and programming languages. The better term would be "CSS Styling", IMO. --Toussaint (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

images! examples!

An article about a visual topic without examples and images? This way, the reader will not easily understand it. -- JakobVoss (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have tried creating images and examples for this article in the past, only to have them unceremoniously removed in edits like this. I haven't really bothered to try to help here much since. Not much point in putting in the effort, I felt. --Nigelj (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

error in intro

"but the language can be applied to any kind of XML document, including SVG and XUL." should say "but the language can be applied to any kind of SGML based document, including XML, SVG, and XUL."- (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Especially since HMTL is not "an XML language". (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

CSS signatures

im not sure this deserves its own article yet , but it may need to be here, CSS signatures are a way for a person to change the look of CSS signatures enabled websites that have the address of the website with - instead of . as the Id of the body tag, so a user enabled style sheet can target the individual page without effecting other sites styles. discussion that explains css signatures --Machinedragon (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Related propose move

Propose move Internet Explorer box model bug to CSS box model problem (Discuss here: Talk:Internet Explorer box model bug#Requested move 2) --Voidvector (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Vertical control limitations 'clarrification'

Well I'm not sure what the original author meant when they entered that, but you can vertically align by e.g a fixed amount by using "position:fixed;bottom:0px;" (IE renders it differently horizontally, but the vertical alignment works). I think adding it would be against WP:NOT (not a textbook..) though?
You can also vertically align elements by forcing them to float over others, it's a common technique used on websites which have partially dynamic lists for navigation... -- (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, no. Think of all the easy ways you can horizontally align something. Align does not mean "only on one side". You can center elements horizontally, even if their container doens't have a fixed width... or, the centered element will shift naturally as its container shrinks or grows. To do so vertically requires plenty of junk HTML (HTML who is added purely for visual effect). This is true even if you're using display: table on the container: display: table in most browsers still needs a display: table-cell and sometimes also a display: table-row element. That's two extra elements you're adding purely for visual styling purposes. Absolutely positioning something to the bottom of something can put an element at the bottom... so let's see you try to absolutely position an element in the middle, when you don't know the height of the element and you don't know the height of the container AND you need to keep your positioned element in the document flow. No, CSS seriously botched vertical alignment of block elements. It *should* have been done the same way horizontal alignment was done. It is certainly a limitation of CSS in the eyes of anyone who designs web pages. (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe the widely unsupported rules the article mentions refer to the W3C flexible box model draft. The flexible box model is supported in the most modern browsers requires a browser prefix since the spec is still a working draft. Johnswrenn (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


Limitations --> Lack of Variables and Advantages --> Bandwidth disagree with each other. ~ (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think they did. I think some contributor had got bogged down in detail about using PHP to generate CSS in two different ways, and then in wondering if PHP's server-side caching of the resulting document would kick in properly in one case (using 'require'), or the browser's client-side caching would help in the other (when using @include). At this level, in a non-how-to, overview article about all of CSS, we really don't care! Suffice to note that any server-side technology could help with the Lack of Variables limitation, if used correctly. So I've simplified the point in the article. Even mentioning PHP is probably still too specific, though. Thanks for pointing it out, it wasn't at all clear as it was. --Nigelj (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"One block declaration cannot explicitly inherit from another" incorrect?

Limitations section says "One block declaration cannot explicitly inherit from another".

If I have rules:

 .class1 {border:thick;}
 .class2 {color:red}

I can make class2 inherit class1 rules:

 .class1,.class2 {border:thick;}
 .class2 {color:red}  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 
I agree. I never understood that "limitation" as explained. There are several ways to pass style from one place to others - as the example above and by using class="class1 class2" in the HTML. Then there is the cascade itself. Then we have the fact that CSS defines the word 'inheritance' in its own way as in color: inherit. The reference given pointed us to the CSS2 recommendation section 6.4.1 Cascading order, which did not mention inheritance at all. So I removed the point. So confusing as to be meaningless; WP:OR, I think. There's lots of other similar guff in the limitations section, especially if you start to read the <!-- comments --> too. --Nigelj (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

External link to Compatibility tables for features in HTML5, CSS3, SVG and other upcoming web technologies

I would like to add an external link to tables of browser compatibility with upcoming standards support Darxus (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We have a page for that here. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it 'style sheet' or 'stylesheet'?

Many sites seem to use one or the other? EG: WordPress uses 'stylesheet', whereas W3 uses 'style sheet'? Which version is the more 'accepted'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What? Of course it's relevant, he raises a good point. Both "style sheet" and "stylesheet" are used without a thought in the article with no consistency. -- (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
See page title, its "Style Sheet". so says the w3c --Darth NormaN (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC) mean this W3C? They actually use "stylesheet" more than they use "style sheet". This is akin to talk:web page#Capitalizing_.22web.22. By all means use one or the other as consistently as possible, but it doesn't matter which one it is (save for the title). ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, one possible solution to this problem is simply to add a short paragraph saying, “In this article, we use [preferred spelling]. However, the spellings (“stylesheet” and “style sheet”) both appear to be used all over the web with little consistency; even the W3C uses both spellings and does not officially prescribe one over the other…” —Zearin 12:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No... you might just as well transclude Compound (linguistics) in its entirety instead. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Html series template

hi, can anyone tell me why the 'Html series' template made it into this article? It is not needed imo. --Darth NormaN (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) is a style sheet language used to describe the presentation (that is, the look and formatting) of a document written in a markup language. Its most common application is to style web pages written in HTML" ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

and that alone justifies the template whose content is only 10% relevant to the actual article? a link to html would be enough. -- (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"HTML" occurs in twenty-nine different places in this article (excluding the template). The vast majority of CSS use is dependent on HTML. ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-colon is not required

A style sheet consists of a list of rules. Each rule or rule-set consists of one or more selectors and a declaration block. A declaration-block consists of a list of declarations in braces. Each declaration itself consists of a property, a colon (:), a value, then a semi-colon (;).[1]

This is from the page. However, resource [1] actually says that a semi-colon is not required if it is closed off with a closing bracket. Someone please confirm this and edit the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

a semi-colon is not required if it ends the last declaration. otherwise it is! so the default rule is: "write a semi-colon at the end of a declaration". by the way, it is always better to add a semi-colon than to forget one. --Darth NormaN (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


Was anyone planning on explaining what was "poor" about the examples I entered? If not, I'll put them back next week. Thanks! --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it began with, "In a web page, declarations are enclosed in <style> ... </style> tags." While 'declarations' is technically the correct term for what you gave, what goes between style tags are CSS 'rules' that include selectors as well as declarations, to say what they should be applied to. Also, just saying that CSS belongs in style tags is misleading as the other important places where CSS declarations are used is in style="" attributes in other HTML elements, and of course, in separate, linked style sheets, which is far more common and recommended for a number of reasons. The second sentence was, "Common formatting elements include:" and what follows are not elements, but as you said earlier, declarations, which don't go as shown between style tags. Have a look at this old version and see if there is anything there that you think might provide a basis for something new? --Nigelj (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I think CSS framework really should be a section of Cascading Style Sheets. Comments and thoughts below please.--M4gnum0n (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree, although it should amount to little more than a sentence or two (and that with at least one WP:RS citation). We should lose the WP:SPAM lists too. --Nigelj (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

New external link: CSS 3 new properties and features

I think that the article at explains reasonably well the advantages CSS 3 brings over its predecessor. I believe it would be a good idea to include this article under "CSS 3 new properties and features". Should it be included? Olivermezquita (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Oliver Mezquita. Dec 1st, 2009.

No. We already have Comparison of layout engines (Cascading Style Sheets), and inclusion of your article verbatim would tread somewhat upon WP:SOAP. ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Another link: Chris361 (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Media Types

Something should be added to this article about CSS media types (screen, print, etc). (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Improve this phrase: "that is, the look and formatting"

To my thinking "look and formatting" is redundant, because "formatting" is a kind of "look". Perhaps a better phrase would be "visual appearance" ... or simply "appearance" (because "visual appearance" is also redundant).

Karl gregory jones (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, going through the spec headings, we would need something like "the layout, formatting, typography, colouring and other visual effects" just for visual (print and screen) CSS. then there are all the equivalents for audio presentation... I guess that's all covered by 'presentation semantics', but if we want to explain what that means in brackets, it's hard. --Nigelj (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Relation to other languages and broader view

The relation to other languages but (X)HTML is not covered by the article. It's only mentioned that CSS can be used in SVG and XUL but nothing more. Moreover CSS and XSL-FO influenced each other and share some concepts - this is also missing in the article. In summary the view on CSS in this article is very limited. -- JakobVoss (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You have to go back some way, but we used to have something about CSS and plain XML[7]. --Nigelj (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

'Positioning' section

Kompromissis (talk · contribs) spent some time on the 18th and 19th October creating a new section. I have today done a widesweeping tidy up of that section, clarifying the English, the structure and the style of the material in accord with the 2.1. Recommendation. I like it, but I am worried about its place here. It is now a fair summary of most of section 9 of the spec, 'Visual formatting model', except for z-index and bidirectional text. Of course there is much more to the complete document, and the question arises, why pick out this section alone for summary? The main section headings that could stand summarising in this way are

  1. Syntax and basic data types
  2. Selectors
  3. Assigning property values, Cascading, and Inheritance
  4. Media types
  5. Box model
  6. Visual formatting model
  7. Visual effects
  8. Generated content, automatic numbering, and lists
  9. Paged media
  10. Colors and Backgrounds
  11. Fonts
  12. Text
  13. Tables
  14. User interface

This is clearly too much to cover in this article. In other areas, WP:SPINOFF articles have been created to treat the syntax and usage of technologies in more detail. These other articles, unfortunately, tend to receive less 'love and care' than the main articles, but they are considered better than nothing in the technical area. Examples that spring to mind are HTML elements (from HTML), and XSLT elements from XSLT. Do other editors think it might be worth doing the same thing here with, say, CSS syntax? This section could be moved there, others added, and the whole thing linked from this article. --Nigelj (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your time and (great) work. However I'd suggest moving all this to the CSS Book where it belongs. This article is just about explaining people what CSS is, what it does and why its cool. I'd like so see one or two basic examples and maybe something like a table with all selectors and all params of the media attribute. Furthermore I'd like to strip out the "Limitations" section and rename the "Advantage" part to "Benefits" or something similar, opinions? --Darth NormaN (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)