ct.css – Take a look inside your <head> | Hacker News Reader

ct.css – Take a look inside your <head>

github.com

192 pointsvalgaze24 comments

CSSWizardry, aka Harry Roberts, who is (was?) big on BEMCSS and ITCSS, and the author of https://cssguidelin.es/.

He's helped me really understand how to properly take care of CSS and make sense of them.

Recommend reading his blog and that guidelines site to get a grip on CSS if you've struggled with it.

The domain for CSS Guidelines is a real shame. It wins points for vanity but it's on Spain's tld. ccTlds tend to be localised such that you don't see them unless you're in the country.

> ccTlds tend to be localised such that you don't see them unless you're in the country.

In Google results you mean, or by the site operators themselves?

I agree if you mean in Google results. I don’t so much agree if you mean by the site operators. At least not for European cctlds. I find it far more common that sites from the US are inaccessible to Europe, than to see a site with a European cctld inaccessible to people in other countries.

Or did you mean sites that redirect to an international version of the same content? Sometimes that happens but usually only with sites belonging to big multi-national companies in my experience. And even then they often ask whether you’d like to stay on the version you went to or go to the version for another region or country.

I mean that Google won't show the results and you also won't actually remember the domain, because it's clever. And in this case, it's a spanish domain so is expected to cater to Spain.

It's not unique, the .cat TLD for Catalonia requires that you serve your content in Catalan, so as to prevent people abusing the obvious appeal of a TLD that in English translates to a cute pet.

.io, .ly and .sh have been victims of this technical imperialism.

To me, that sounds a lot like a 2 year old type of behavior. Does anybody really even care what a TLD is or is "meant" to be used as? Honestly, if it's not a .com, most people are going to screw up and add .com out of sheer habit.

It's the friggin' internet. If it's out there, someone will do something they feel like doing with it even if that's not the originally intended concept.

> Does anybody really even care what a TLD is or is "meant" to be used as?

Yes, the owners of the TLD. The same way that I cannot register a .google, .no, or .uk at all.

You can register a .no domain through a broker similar to how whois privacy at most registrars works: the broker is the registrant but then affords you full control of the domain.

That sounds like a bad idea. If your site is successful the broker could jack up the price to let you keep control. Better to stick to registering domains directly through a normal registrar. And if you are not in a position to create a Norwegian enkeltpersonsforetak or aksjeselskap, then why bother with a .no domain?

Pretty rich to call them victims.

They have benefitted from a large amount of revenue and if they wanted, they could have easily prevented foreign registrations by requiring a mailing address in the country or that the registered site has some tie to the region. Like your example of .cat.

What exactly have these countries lost?

Probably everything, except for .tv (Tuvalu) which do have a good agreement. I'm skipping on .io since it's a rabbithole, but .ly and .sh aren't runned by or on behalf of their governments, they instead are being runned by different companies. The most notorious of these is Niue's (.nu), which their government try their best to recover from a Nordic country to no avail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.nu) .

Interested in the data to support this (as a maintainer of many, many tld's that aren't in any way connected to the land on which I reside.

I'm curious what you mean. I tried "css guidelines" on Google and DuckDuckGo, and cssguidelin.es was the first result on both.

I'm a big fan of Harry's, and I've been hoping to see him publish more details on ITCSS. I built my current website around the methodology based on a talk he gave years ago. When last I checked though, there still weren't any readily-available details or documentation on the topic.

With the prevalence of component frameworks though, and certain new technologies like CSS Layers and :where(), I feel ITCSS may not be as essential as it used to be. Specificity is becoming less of a problem to manage for large-scale websites. I think it still has its place, but is maybe not the universal solution I once saw it as.

Between ITCSS, SMACSS, BEM, and all the other CSS naming and structural conventions, it's been pretty nice to do CSS-in-JS and not really worry about the cascade.

Except not all sites need or should really use JS

You can use CSS in JS on server side only, and serve it as a normal html + css site to a browser.

ITCSS model helped me dramatically reduce the amount of css I write.

Also, Harry has a class on Skillshare.

Absolutely this!

I did a migration/update of a site using this idea (before styled-components became the norm), and it was just insane how much CSS was saved. The new design was AT MOST half the size of the original.

That's fun. I actually used a similar method to build this page[1]. (see page source). I used script tags for the content.

[1]: https://idiallo.com/nobot.php

Edit: All HTML tags are a CSS rule away to becoming visible.

Update: I've built this page many years ago, and one of the issues was that I couldn't nest script tags. The reason is everything inside the script tag is considered plain text. So having a hyperlink inside a paragraph was impossible.

However, I just found out that you can create nested elements in the script tags if via javascript. So something like script1.appendChild(script2) works and renders correctly. The Possibilities!!!

Clever use of CSS!

I love a good CSS trick. Very cool.

Could we get the title changed to "ct.css – Let’s take a look inside your <head>"? It looks like some got cut off.

Done now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com