Talk:CSS

A strange statement

The article states:

The style sheet with the highest priority controls the content display. Declarations not set in the highest priority source are passed on to a source of lower priority, such as the user agent style.

I cannot see any sense with the word "not" in the above statement. According to Wikipedia, undefined declarations are passed on to a source of lower priority. Which means that the lack of declarations is passed, then consequently, nothing is passed. Besides, what happens with the declarations that are actually defined? Are they passed on to a source of lower priority or not? The Wikipedia statement suggests that they are not. As a programmer, I use CSS everyday, but if you can enlighten me, please do so. 85.193.240.163 (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

User agent styling

Expanding on user agent style sheets could be helpful to better explain the cascade and illustrate where default styling is coming from, especially when pointing to actual user agent style sheets. For example, User Agent Style Sheets: Basics and Samples provides context and style sheets. Although I couldn‘t find an article with more examples, I’m also the owner of this particular one (SME challenge), and therefore like to raise topic and resource here: Could user agent style sheets be worth explaining more? With or without references to sample style sheets? —j9t (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

August 2024

When will there be a CSS 4? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewestPiano (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@NewestPiano: See my reply at #Latest release section above. Since the likelihood of a full CSS 3 specification is small, it follows that a CSS 4 spec is even less likely. In short: never. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I did now. NewestPiano (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait Never?!? NewestPiano (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, have a read of CSS Snapshot 2023 section 2.4. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I read Already. NewestPiano (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

New CSS Logo?

CSS appears to be getting a new logo - see here and here. I'm not 100% sure if it's actually official, though, so I'm still hesitant on adding it to the article - I'd like for someone else to doublecheck and ensure that I'm not being an idiot here. Rabbithawk256 (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That's my reason for removing it so far. What I would like to see is some secondary source announce or run with it at least once before we as a tertiary source publish it. Remsense ‥ 论 16:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

New logo was decided by the CSS4 Community Group under the W3C created on 24 February 2020. According to the W3C, Community Groups are:

A W3C Community Group is an open forum, without fees, where Web developers and other stakeholders develop reports, hold discussions, develop test suites, and connect with W3C’s international community of Web experts. Community Groups may produce Reports; these are not standards-track documents but may become input to the standards process. For instance, a Community Group might gather to work on a new technical specification, or convene to have discussions about a tutorial for an existing specification.

So this is not an official standard, however the committee's existence is so far sanctioned by the W3C. It is important to note also that the CSS4 Community Group is unaffiliated with the CSS Working Group which is the official committee responsible for developing the CSS language.

TL;DR: Is this official? Hard to say, might want to ask the CSS4 CG and CSSWG folks. Kreuner (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The blue CSS badge logo that's currently in the article isn't official either; it just comes from a DeviantArt artist. It's just the most commonly used logo for CSS, but perhaps that's because of its inclusion in Wikipedia: the top results on Google for "css official logo" are from Wikipedia and other stock image sites.

The blue badge logo design originates from the colorless CSS3 icon that accompanied W3C's HTML logo. SheepTester (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this seems to be the most appropriate logo right now. Kreuner (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems like the logo may be adopted by the W3C CSSWG: [1]. I imagine if they issue an official endorsement of some form then there may be some secondary coverage.  novov talk edits 10:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The rebeccapurple CSS logo created by The CSS-Next Community Group has already has a planned endorsement by the CSSWG. Please see github/w3c/csswg-drafts#11193 for more info. At this point where the W3C CSSWG is going to endorse it, continuing to have the current CSS3 logo will certainly confuse new web developers. Ring2gaun2GRUS (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Blueprint CSS framework is outdated

The Blueprint CSS framework is outdated. (14 years old). It should be replaced by a current framework. Maybe it is maintained in a fork. Then a link should be fiven to that. 102.176.94.17 (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

We describe what is available. We do not give advice on what people should use. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we please stop this person from reverting the new css logo

This one individual is reverting all changes by anyone regarding the new css logo, despite them getting down votes and every other addition getting a flood of up votes. I'm going to try one more time ITZ NAO (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Only if you can abide by the basic directions I already laid out months ago. "Down votes" can't override site policy—what do you even mean when you say that? Remsense ‥ 论 17:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Even if everyone wants it added to the site? The history of the logo? It's the new official logo and it should be added. ITZ NAO (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I see a few new users who aren't aware of or are confused about our content policies, but not the situation you describe. Consensus based on site policy is what actually matters, as opposed to "vote" count, and you can't form a consensus about whether something is in line with our policies if you don't pay any mind to what those policies say to begin with. Remsense ‥ 论 17:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, please state these "basic directions". ITZ NAO (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

We should use the CSS Next CG logo (purple square). It's the only one with any sort of official recognition. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, this is what everyone wants. And this user is power tripping and causing an edit war with multiple people. ITZ NAO (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There is another thread about this, where users were fighting to have it added and he was not allowing it. ITZ NAO (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Why did you ask me to repeat what the requirements are, given you seem to know where I had previously stated them? Remsense ‥ 论 17:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

What I mainly have a problem with is the irrelevant trivia only cited to a primary source that you insist on adding and readding. We're a tertiary source that balances secondary coverage of topics, not a fan wiki that indiscriminately regurgitates our favorite press releases. Remsense ‥ 论 17:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

If you actually checked the source, they talk about the colour being added as a tribute to his daughter. Maybe you should actually try coding for once and learn a thing or two. There was nothing wrong with it. ITZ NAO (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing the encyclopedia if you don't care about following our content policies. This is a volunteer project, and you've done nothing but waste the time of others. Remsense ‥ 论 17:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you trying to remove this because it's "irrelevant trivia"? Or because you see the sourcing as inadequate for such a vital aspect?

Yes, we have a WP:SECONDARY policy. But you would also do well to read WP:PRIMARY. For a project logo, that you anyway see as "trivial", from a reputable publisher such as the W3C, then it is entirely acceptable to use this primary sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The statements are equivalent here—if the material here is covered in secondary sources, it ceases to be irrelevant or trivial. Primary sources are for citing that a new logo exists; there's no justification in treating their narratives etc. as if they are WP:DUE if they are the only source. All I am asking for is a blurb in Ars Technica or wherever—if material can't meet that level of provenance, then we shouldn't be wasting readers' time with it. Remsense ‥ 论 18:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I am done with this conversation, we all have tried multiple times but this user insists to remove it. Happy coding everyone! ITZ NAO (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)