Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic cascading style sheets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) at 03:56, 31 May 2019 (Relisting discussion (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Dynamic cascading style sheets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, but no improvement in the weeks since. Unimportant technique, with extremely sparse sourcing. Technically this is not a popular technique because it's just not a good idea to do it (it's of little use, and it breaks the REST model that efficient use of the web generally relies on). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Given how it mentions less and scss (which are not dynamic), it does show that there should be something written about CSS preprocessors somewhere on this wiki. If we stretch the term hard enough those awful hacks can probably be seen as their spiritual (like... NodeJS/JScript type spiritual) precursors. --Artoria2e5 🌉 22:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less and CSS pre-processors are not dynamic CSS though.
Dynamic CSS is one of those ideas which sound like a good idea, until you think through the details. If the stylesheet(s) become dynamic, then they break a couple of the assumptions which we normally rely on to make the web efficient. Stylesheets which are stable and do not have temporal dependencies on their associated page can be cached and shared between many pages. Using dynamic CSS breaks that. As a result, it never became a popular technique, or relevant to us here. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]