Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Well, that's the matter of live systems design.

When you want to add a feature you should ask first if that can be accomplished by existing mechanisms.

And the second, if to go with with the change that affect millions of users, can we solve not just one problem (that already has a solution like LeSS & Co.) but possibly other principal too?

So for #1. If we already have @media sections, why not to use the same notation?

   @media name { ...rules... }
and

   @set name { ...rules... } 
@set can use existing code in parsers. Not just in browsers but in tons of existing tools and editors that do syntax highlighting.

And #2. Style sets solve problem of global CSS namespace pollution.

Consider this rule:

   div [name="some"] { ... }
then, while calculating styles of DOM elements, absolutely all N DOM elements need to be checked against this rule. So it is a O(N) complex task. And proposed nested rules thing does not reduce the N, but may make this even worse - more rules will be used.

While in style set solution:

   @set ComponentA {
      div [name="some"] { ... }
   } 
that rule will be checked only against children of componentA - the rule is local/scoped to DOM subtree. Still O(n), but n <<< N.


Contemporary CSS engines use bucketing, so a rule like div[name="some"] will only ever be considered for something that has (depending on your browser implementation) either a “name” attribute or is a <div>. In other words, “Absolutely all N DOM elements need to be checked” is completely wrong. It's worst-case O(n), sure, but on a practical page nowhere near average-case O(n).

As for @media queries, I can't say anything about Gecko or WebKit, but at least in Blink they're handled entirely different. And @scope (which is the closest I know of to your hypothetical @set) is significantly less efficient than bucketing is, or even a simple parent selector, since it needs to walk up the DOM after the rule matched.


> bucketing ...

"All of that is very different between the various engines, making the whole process even less predictable."

Source: https://benfrain.com/css-performance-revisited-selectors-blo...

In worst case complexity of styles resolution is O(nS*nD) where nS is a number of style rules and nD is a number of DOM elements. That's for current flat style table used by CSS. You can optimize bits and cases but it in general problem is like that.

> @media queries ... at least in Blink they're handled entirely different.

@media and @set are different mechanisms. :root in @set matches element that has this set applied. @set's are scoped set of rules. @media are not.

But I was talking about different thing - parsing, in particular in syntax highlighters and other tools.

----

Consider this DOM:

   <body>
     <aside styleset="styles.css#aside-set">...</aside>
     <main styleset="styles.css#main-set">...</main>
   </body>
And CSS:

   @set aside-set {
     :root {...}
     ... nA more rules
   }

   @set main-set {
     :root {...}
     ... nM more rules
   }
 
<aside> content style resolution will always be constant and independent from <main>, no matter how many nM rules you will have. While currently (with the flat table) adding rules for <main> content will increase complexity of <aside> DOM resolution too.

As a bonus: rules in two sets are completely isolated. Adding rule in main-set will never break existing aside design.


> In worst case complexity of styles resolution is O(nS*nD) where nS is a number of style rules and nD is a number of DOM elements. That's for current flat style table used by CSS. You can optimize bits and cases but it in general problem is like that.

Worst-case isn't really interesting for browsers, though. CSS doesn't have an adversarial performance model.

> @media and @set are different mechanisms. :root in @set matches element that has this set applied. @set's are scoped set of rules. @media are not.

Again, this roughly matches @scope (where :scope matches the element that has the given selector applied). But this is just a fantasy spec, right? There are no browsers that implement this, and just like with @scope or nesting or CSS at all, there's no guarantee in the spec what performance characteristics you would have?

FWIW, if you want something like this and get it through CSSWG, you'll most likely see it end up with worse performance than flat CSS, unless it becomes _really_ popular and browsers see the need to optimize certain sub-cases of it (the general case, with tons of different sets, will be nearly impossible to make really fast).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: