One of the things I’ve been doing for the past few months (on and off—more off than on TBH) is rewriting Bliss to use ESM 1. Since Bliss v1 was not using a modular architecture at all, this introduced some interesting challenges.
Categories
Categories
Writable getters
A pattern that has come up a few times in my code is the following: an object has a property which defaults to an expression based on its other properties unless it’s explicitly set, in which case it functions like a normal property. Essentially, the expression functions as a default value.
Update: I got elected!! Thank you so much to every W3C member organization who voted for me. 🙏🏼 Now on to making the Web better, alongside fellow TAG members!
Context: I’m running for one of the four open seats in this year’s W3C TAG election. The W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG) is the Working Group that ensures that Web Platform technologies are usable and follow consistent design principles, whether they are created inside or outside W3C. It advocates for the needs of everyone who uses the Web and everyone who works on the Web. If you work for a company that is a W3C Member, please consider encouraging your AC rep to vote for me! My candidate statement follows.
Categories
The case for Weak Dependencies in JS
Earlier today, I was briefly entertaining the idea of writing a library to wrap and enhance querySelectorAll in certain ways. I thought I’d rather not introduce a Parsel dependency out of the box, but only use it to parse selectors properly when it’s available, and use more crude regex when it’s not (which would cover most use cases for what I wanted to do).
In the olden days, where every library introduced a global, I could just do:
if (window.Parsel) {
let ast = Parsel.parse();
// rewrite selector properly, with AST
}
else {
// crude regex replace
}However, with ESM, there doesn’t seem to be a way to detect whether a module is imported, without actually importing it yourself.
I tweeted about this…
Categories
Simple pie charts with fallback, today
Five years ago, I had written this extensive Smashing Magazine article detailing multiple different methods for creating simple pie charts, either with clever use of transforms and pseudo-elements, or with SVG stroke-dasharray. In the end, I mentioned creating pie charts with conic gradients, as a future technique. It was actually a writeup of my “The Missing Slice” talk, and an excerpt of my CSS Secrets book, which had just been published.
I was reminded of this article today by someone on Twitter:
I suggested conic gradients, since they are now supported in >87% of users’ browsers, but he needed to support IE11. He suggested using my polyfill from back then, but this is not a very good idea today.
Indeed, unless you really need to display conic gradients, even I would not recommend using the polyfill on a production facing site. It requires -prefix-free, which re-fetches (albeit from cache) your entire CSS and sticks it in a <style> element, with no sourcemaps since those were not a thing back when -prefix-free was written. If you’re already using -prefix-free, the polyfill is great, but if not, it’s way too heavy a dependency.
Pie charts with fallback (modern browsers)
Instead, what I would recommend is graceful degradation, i.e. to use the same color stops, but in a linear gradient.
What if I told you you could use a single property value to turn multiple different values on and off across multiple different properties and even across multiple CSS rules?
What if I told you you could turn this flat button into a glossy skeuomorphic button by just tweaking one custom property --is-raised, and that would set its border, background image, box and text shadows in one fell swoop?
Web Components had so much potential to empower HTML to do more, and make web development more accessible to non-programmers and easier for programmers. Remember how exciting it was every time we got new shiny HTML elements that actually do stuff? Remember how exciting it was to be able to do sliders, color pickers, dialogs, disclosure widgets straight in the HTML, without having to include any widget libraries?
The promise of Web Components was that we’d get this convenience, but for a much wider range of HTML elements, developed much faster, as nobody needs to wait for the full spec + implementation process. We’d just include a script, and boom, we have more elements at our disposal!
Or, that was the idea. Somewhere along the way, the space got flooded by JS frameworks aficionados, who revel in complex APIs, overengineered build processes and dependency graphs that look like the roots of a banyan tree.
I made this chart in the amazing Excalidraw about two weeks ago:
It only took me 10 minutes! Shortly after, my laptop broke down into repeated kernel panics, and it spent about 10 days in service (I was in a remote place when it broke, so it took some time to get it to service). Yesterday, I was finally reunited with it, turned it on, launched Chrome, and saw it again. It gave me a smile, and I realized I never got to post it, so I tweeted this:
The tweet kinda blew up! It seems many, many developers identify with it. A few also disagreed with it, especially with the “Does it actually work?” line. So I figured I should write a bit about the rationale behind it. I originally wrote it in a tweet, but then I realized I should probably post it in a less transient medium, that is more well suited to longer text.
I’ve posted before about my work for the Web Almanac this year. To make it easier to calculate the stats about CSS selectors, we looked to use an existing selector parser, but most were too big and/or had dependencies or didn’t account for all selectors we wanted to parse, and we’d need to write our own walk and specificity methods anyway. So I did what I usually do in these cases: I wrote my own!
You can find it here: https://projects.verou.me/parsel/
For some of the statistics we are going to study for this year’s Web Almanac we may end up needing a list of CSS shorthands and their longhands. Now this is typically done by maintaining a data structure by hand or guessing based on property name structure. But I knew that if we were going to do it by hand, it’s very easy to miss a few of the less popular ones, and the naming rule where shorthands are a prefix of their longhands has failed to get standardized and now has even more exceptions than it used to. And even if we do an incredibly thorough job, next year the data structure will be inaccurate, because CSS and its implementations evolve fast. The browser knows what the shorthands are, surely we should be able to get the information from it …right? Then we could use it directly if this is a client-side library, or in the case of the Almanac, where code needs to be fast because it will run on millions of websites, paste the precomputed result into whatever script we run.