librelist archives

« back to archive

Website contributions

Website contributions

From:
Marios Antonoudiou
Date:
2014-01-21 @ 20:58
Hello awesome shoes community!

We had a small chat in irc where I expressed my will to contribute to
shoes' website.

I would like to ask you if it is ok to add some dynamic css engine, for the
sake of simplicity and flexibility. The need for simple build (using
nothing more than github's jekyll) was expressed, but I was thinking how
about adding dynamic in-browser less css compiling.

Please feel free to share your thoughts and/or requests.

--
Marios Antonoudiou

Re: [shoes] Website contributions

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2014-01-21 @ 22:01
I don't know what in-browser CSS compiling gets us, other than a
slower site. What are the advantages here?

Re: [shoes] Website contributions

From:
Marios Antonoudiou
Date:
2014-01-21 @ 22:13
It makes css easier to develop and maintain and (since it's compiled after
all) you have cleaner html because you link to one css file.

You can check the css-compatible lesscss <http://www.lesscss.org/>, which
Bootstrap is built with.

There is one thing to keep in mind, though. It does not work with -caugh-
non-modern browsers.

--
Marios Antonoudiou


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Steve Klabnik <steve@steveklabnik.com>wrote:

> I don't know what in-browser CSS compiling gets us, other than a
> slower site. What are the advantages here?
>

Re: [shoes] Website contributions

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2014-01-21 @ 23:46
> It makes css easier to develop and maintain

I'm not sure it's easier to develop and maintain than having an
explicit compilation step, though.

> you have cleaner html because you link to one css file.

Most 'compile your CSS' solutions generate one file.

>  It does not work with -caugh- non-modern browsers.

Many Shoes users have older hardware. I'm not saying that we should go
out of our way to be 100% compliant with old browsers, but this is a
big drawback.

I think I'm still in favor of an explicit compilation step.