Talk:Style sheet (web development)

message: Just added a lot more.  I wish I had looked at the VfD page before starting my edit, however, since I went the route of just adding a bunch more information about the use of CSS. If there are other good examples of this, please add them in! -Doozer 05:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big edit 

message: The Slower work without the parsing and generation tools heading under Disadvantages does not make much sense to me.
While CSS - based documents can be easily generated and parsed automatically, defining styles separately makes the document more difficult to read and write without the software tools. In some cases (for example, in the source code comments) the HTML code must be easy to write and read, and CSS is less frequently used.
"...makes the document more difficult to read and write without software tools."
What does this mean? I write X/HTML and CSS with a text editor and view the results in a browser. This seems like the bare minimum you need to write web code. I don't rely on any other software tools to "see" what I am producing. This comment is vague and misleading.
I think this whole section should be deleted. --Rossr 21:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed most of that section. I revised a bit, but I couldn't even discern what the original author had in mind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cplot (talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF? 

message: This differs from the traditional web design methodology, in which a page's markup defines both style and content.
That just doesn't sound right.  CSS design is not "non-traditional".  It's been around for ten years and it's considered the right way to do it.  This should be worded better. —Michael Z. 2006-12-14 10:00 Z
:This is a good point, I will modify the text to better reflect a more neutral and accurate connotation. dr.ef.tymac 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Traditional" web design 

message: There are four uses of "style sheet" (as two words) in the body of this entry and nine of "stylesheet" (as one word), with the title appearing as two words. Both uses are found in the first paragraph. We need to standardize on one or the other. I could argue either side of the matter—on the one hand, the common usage is "stylesheet," on the other hand, the W3C says "style sheet"—and I don't really care what's settled on. I'd go the WP:BOLD route and just change one half of the uses, but I don't want to get caught up in a holy war.
Who wants to tackle this? --WaldoJ (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: . I went with "style sheet". HairyWombat 03:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Two words. Lie & Bos' book uses "Cascading Style Sheets" as a title, and after all they're CSS, not CS. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "style sheet" two words, or one? 

message: The introductory paragraph seems to focus more on what a style sheet is not rather than describing what it is.  This needs a more positive approach, something like 'A web style sheet is a file that defines the visual layout (style) for a web page, separate from the markup (i.e., HTML or XHTML) of the page's semantic content and structure.  This design approach is identified as a "separation" because it largely supersedes the antecedent methodology in which a page's markup defined both style and structure.'  -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory Paragraph 

message: First, there is an error in the lede section here. It says that "style is defined in an external style sheet file using a style sheet language such as CSS or XSLT", and it has defines "style" as "visual layout". XSLT does not define the visual layout of HTML, XHTML or XML. Our own article says that XSLT is "for transforming XML documents into other XML documents, or other objects such as HTML [etc]". After processing with an XSLT 'stylesheet', an XHTML webpage will be no more 'styled' for visual display than it was before. 
Secondly, XSLT in that sentence is confusingly linked to Extensible Stylesheet Language, which redirects to XSL. If, by this someone may argue that what is meant is not XSLT, but XSL Formatting Objects, then we are talking about something like styling XHTML for display as a PDF, which so does not fit with the rest of the opening statements.
Thirdly, XSLT is not mentioned again in the article, which means that the present mention is completely unsourced and does not comply with WP:LEDE, which says that the lede should summarise the content in the  body of the article.
Lastly, I can see something of the difficult genesis that this article, by this name, has had from the 2007 discussions above. I suggest that the merging process is not finished yet. If we remove 'XSLT' from the lede, as I propose, then what we are left with is an article about the benefits of using CSS with HTML. So, what is the difference in purpose between this article and the one at Separation of presentation and content? I therefore further propose that initiate another merge process between Style sheet (web development) and Separation of presentation and content. --Nigelj (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be for merging Style sheet (web development) into Separation of presentation and content, but not the reverse. I'd also be for merging Style sheet (desktop publishing) into same or an article about style sheets in general.  Oicumayberight (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

text: It's notable that XSL-FO has been abandoned. XSLT is a transformation language, not a stylesheet standard. And the content seems very CSS-centric, anyways. It's been suggested this article be merged with CSS with tags now showing on both articles. How do we take action or decide to remove the tags with no action taken? -wʃʃʍ- 21:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  XSL-FO has hardly been "abandoned", the same purpose and direction has simply gone into CSS3 paged media  Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Without XSLT, what is this article about? 

message: Wiktionary prefers stylesheet (one word). Shouldn't we be consistent? --Mortense (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems this has already been addressed (in favor of “style sheet,” and consistent with the spec). —j9t (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylesheet vs. style sheet