Settings

* except Analytics

Type to listen to my time signal service (powered by your computer’s clock)!

  1. About
  2. Explore
  3. Posts
  4. Projects

This note, in reply to What's Your Style? by fLaMEd, was published on .

If I go back and look at the first version of my website from 2008, it looks like I was a style.css guy.

I resent so much about that decision. 😂

I mean, I guess they are called Cascading Style Sheets, not Cascading Styles Sheets, so maybe there’s an argument to be made there for using style.css, but I won’t be the one defending that position!

Recently, though, I tend not to use either style.css or styles.css.

Ever since the notion of Critical CSS entered the scene, I’ve named things a bit differently. Because the idea here is to split a website’s styles into two sets—one that is required for above the fold content, or many/all pages; and another that is needed to style the rest of the website—I’ve started naming the two stylesheets critical.css and defer.css.

What actually happens on my website these days is that I use the 11ty plugin, eleventy-plugin-bundle, to combine various SCSS partials into two buckets (also named critical and defer), and the plugin generates a chunk of CSS that gets inlined in the <head> and another chunk that gets spat out into a content-hashed file location and gets referenced by a <link> tag.

So, in short, I’ve still got a fondness in my heart for ol’ faithful, /css/styles.css, but what I actually do in practice differs. That being said, I think there’s a future where, like native Web Components for example, CSS comes bundled with the HTML that it’s associated with as a best practice. And with that being a possibility, I think it’s reasonable to assume that I’ll be naming my CSS files styles.css once again!

You can also send an anonymous reply (using Quill and Comment Parade).

Browse by category

Browse by tag