Make scoped CSS the default in 'template-tags'

[bitxplora]

Making scoped-CSS the default will improve the developer experience by not having to fight spill CSS that is affecting other components.

Make Scoped CSS the default in 'template-tags

Rendered

Summary

Based on my observation while using template-tags to author components, the style tag inside template-tags is global, which I think should not be because it may affect other components. Also, libraries or imported components might have used the same style name, so the issue will become nested and, therefore won't be easy to trace. Even if one works around this using a unique class wrapper for each component, the possibility of collision is still present, and uniqueness is not guaranteed project-wide.

This pull request is proposing a new RFC.

To succeed, it will need to pass into the Exploring Stage), followed by the Accepted Stage.

A Proposed or Exploring RFC may also move to the Closed Stage if it is withdrawn by the author or if it is rejected by the Ember team. This requires an "FCP to Close" period.

An FCP is required before merging this PR to advance to Accepted.

Upon merging this PR, automation will open a draft PR for this RFC to move to the Ready for Released Stage.

Exploring Stage Description

This stage is entered when the Ember team believes the concept described in the RFC should be pursued, but the RFC may still need some more work, discussion, answers to open questions, and/or a champion before it can move to the next stage.

An RFC is moved into Exploring with consensus of the relevant teams. The relevant team expects to spend time helping to refine the proposal. The RFC remains a PR and will have an Exploring label applied.

An Exploring RFC that is successfully completed can move to Accepted with an FCP is required as in the existing process. It may also be moved to Closed with an FCP.

Accepted Stage Description

To move into the "accepted stage" the RFC must have complete prose and have successfully passed through an "FCP to Accept" period in which the community has weighed in and consensus has been achieved on the direction. The relevant teams believe that the proposal is well-specified and ready for implementation. The RFC has a champion within one of the relevant teams.

If there are unanswered questions, we have outlined them and expect that they will be answered before Ready for Release.

When the RFC is accepted, the PR will be merged, and automation will open a new PR to move the RFC to the Ready for Release stage. That PR should be used to track implementation progress and gain consensus to move to the next stage.

Checklist to move to Exploring

• [ ] The team believes the concepts described in the RFC should be pursued.
• [ ] The label S-Proposed is removed from the PR and the label S-Exploring is added.
• [ ] The Ember team is willing to work on the proposal to get it to Accepted

Checklist to move to Accepted

• [ ] This PR has had the Final Comment Period label has been added to start the FCP
• [ ] The RFC is announced in #news-and-announcements in the Ember Discord.
• [ ] The RFC has complete prose, is well-specified and ready for implementation.
  • [ ] All sections of the RFC are filled out.
  • [ ] Any unanswered questions are outlined and expected to be answered before Ready for Release.
  • [ ] "How we teach this?" is sufficiently filled out.
• [ ] The RFC has a champion within one of the relevant teams.
• [ ] The RFC has consensus after the FCP period.

[ef4]

(I wrote glimmer-scoped-css so in general I think it's a good pattern.)

I think the important thing this RFC needs to clarify is what we're committing to in published addons. Addons are not supposed to publish template tag, they're supposed to turn it into valid javascript first.

One way that could work is essentially what apps already do now in their own build when using the addon:

// === GJS Input ===
const MyComponent = <template>
  <style>
    h1 { color: red }
  </style>
  <h1>Hello</h1>
</template>

// === JS Output ===
import { template } from '@ember/template-compiler';

/*
  This would be a real file in the published addon containing:
    h1[data-scopedcss-5f78d2d716-402c934e4d] { color: red }
*/
import "./scoped-css-5f78d2d716.css";

const MyComponent = template(`
  <h1 data-scopedcss-5f78d2d716-402c934e4d>Hello</h1>
`);

If that's how we want it to work, we're not committing to anything new in addons, because they're already allowed to import paths ending in .css and expect that to mean "append this CSS to the dom before my module evaluates".

However, one downside of that strategy is that the CSS is eager, in the sense that it goes in the DOM when you import the component, not when you render the component. A component that's imported but never rendered still has its CSS in the DOM forever. Does this matter? Personally I suspect no. But there is an alternative design like:

// === GJS Input ===
const MyComponent = <template>
  <style>
    h1 { color: red }
  </style>
  <h1>Hello</h1>
</template>

// === JS Output ===
import { template } from '@ember/template-compiler';

// this utility would do a reference-counted insert/remove of the constructible stylesheet on the document
import { ensureAppended } from 'glimmer-scoped-css/runtime';

const __stylesheet0__ = new CSSStyleSheet();
__stylesheet0__.replaceSync(`
  h1[data-scopedcss-5f78d2d716-402c934e4d] { color: red }
`);

const MyComponent = template(`
  {{ (ensureAppended __stylessheet0__) }}
  <h1 data-scopedcss-5f78d2d716-402c934e4d>Hello</h1>
`, { 
      scope: () => ({ __stylesheet0__ }) 
    }
);

In one sense, this RFC doesn't really have to decide between these two alternatives, because both only use features that addons are already allowed to use. But it would probably be good for us to offer solid guidance to addon authors so they aren't each picking their own solution.

[ef4]

Separate topic: I think this RFC needs to actually write out what people are allowed to say in their CSS and exactly how it differs from standard CSS. For example:

• :deep is a thing
• what CSS features are not supported? (I think maybe named keyframes?)

This can lean on the documentation for Vue's scoped CSS feature, because that is the implementation I started from.

[bitxplora]

1. Within the style tag in the template-tag, one should be able to write the standard CSS, it should be scoped by default.
2. Also, there are good uses for the capability to import style files. For example:
   • If there is more than one component that needs the same styling, one should be able to have a single CSS file that is importable into only the components that need it.
   • Some components share a common base styling which each component builds upon. Having a common base in a single file that can be imported by the components that need it is excellent.
3. It is more Svelte than Vue's scoped CSS.

Separate topic: I think this RFC needs to actually write out what people are allowed to say in their CSS and exactly how it differs from standard CSS. For example:

* `:deep` is a thing

* what CSS features are not supported? (I think maybe named keyframes?)

This can lean on the documentation for Vue's scoped CSS feature, because that is the implementation I started from.

[gossi]

I'm also a friend of plain CSS as it is become sooo good lately. However, what about CSS pre-processors?

I could very much imagine the case, where people do use CSS modules (or similar) and want to use compose, or to use some looping behavior from a given preprocessor (SASS or PostCSS).

I think the RFC should answer one of the two questions:

• If there is a preprocessor infrastructure, how to use it? ie. how does one integrate their preprocessor of choice? (app, addon, engine)
• If there there is no preprocessor infrastructure, then reasons for why there are none. That is to point people to the RFC for the answer on this topic

[NullVoxPopuli]

However, what about CSS pre-processors?

I don't think addons should publish non-native CSS. Like how we require their JS to be compiled, so should we require their CSS be compiled. If they want variables/etc, they should be native CSS variables.

I could very much imagine the case, where people do use CSS modules (or similar) and want to use compose, or to use some looping behavior from a given preprocessor (SASS or PostCSS).

Since the compile target is ultimately an import of CSS, and since how that import is interpreted must be determined by the app, and thus follow the conventions of whatever packager/app system an app is using (webpack, vite, etc).

Webpack uses loaders, so you could configure all CSS to use sass or postcss: https://webpack.js.org/loaders/postcss-loader/ (there would be no point in css-modules, because the proposed tool here already scopes correctly)

However, via their test, and related, option(s), you could even run these varying loaders over your node_modules.

For Vite, they automatically apply postcss by default: https://vitejs.dev/guide/features.html#css (if detected)

In anycase, if folks want to use CSS modules, there is nothing that this RFC needs to cover.

Both Webpack and Vite support css-modules, and to use them, you'd import x from './styles.module.css', for example, and matching up your x.whatever classes in your gjs/gts.

I don't think it makes sense for any of these features to be implemented in co-located components. gjs/gts is much easier to support, and conceptually makes more sens.

If webpack or vite are configured to handle multiple file extensions, then we could probably support that with little effort.

<template>
 
  <style lang="sass">...</sytle>
</template>

becomes

import './styles.sass';

once compiled.

Since different tools support different features via query parameters, I think we can use the

for example, using Vite's "inline": https://vitejs.dev/guide/features.html#disabling-css-injection-into-the-page

<template>
 
  <style inline>...</sytle>
</template>

becomes

import './styles.css?inline';

once compiled.

[bitxplora]

When one uses a CSS preprocessor, one will probably be practicing scalable and modular architecture for CSS (SMACSS) and the like.

 scss/
 ├── base/
 │   ├── _reset.scss
 │   └── _typography.scss
 ├── components/
 │   ├── _button.scss
 │   └── _card.scss
 ├── layout/
 │   ├── _header.scss
 │   └── _footer.scss
 └── utilities/
     ├── _variables.scss
     ├── _mixins.scss
     └── _functions.scss

This means one will have the style for each component in its own .scss file in the components directory. That is, you have to structure your stylesheets to align with your components. Each component should have its own SCSS file, making it easier to maintain and update styles.

So, putting the SCSS in the component's style tags, might not be the best.

At the same, what is suggested by @NullVoxPopuli; passing of the preprocessor as a language attribute of the style tag is a good one.

I'm also a friend of plain CSS as it is become sooo good lately. However, what about CSS pre-processors?

I could very much imagine the case, where people do use CSS modules (or similar) and want to use compose, or to use some looping behavior from a given preprocessor (SASS or PostCSS).

I think the RFC should answer one of the two questions:

* If there is a preprocessor infrastructure, how to use it? ie. how does one integrate their preprocessor of choice? (app, addon, engine)

* If there there is no preprocessor infrastructure, then reasons for why there are none. That is to point people to the RFC for the answer on this topic

[ef4]

A possible amendment that came out of real usage issues at Cardstack:

Because it's easy to unintentionally apply your transforms to third-party code, it's not great that the current implementation repurposes the meaning of <style> in templates. It may be smarter to make the scoped behavior opt-in via <style scoped>, instead of opt-out via <style unscoped>.

[ef4]

The above comment -- making scoping opt-in instead of opt-out -- is now implemented in glimmer-scoped-css 0.6.0.

[kategengler]

I haven't followed all the discussion of scoped css, so forgive me if this has been discussed already:

CSS @scope allows scoping css rules to elements. It is not implemented yet in Firefox but is behind a flag. It is a draft spec

<div>
  <style>
    @scope {
      h1 {
          background: blue;
      }
    }
  </style>
  <h1>I'm blue</h1>
</div>
<h1> I'm not blue</h1>

<style scoped was an earlier proposal that was removed.

[ef4]

I think the proposed CSS @scope is different from glimmer-scoped-css because it's not lexically-scoped. Meaning that it would affect {{yield}}ed content differently.

glimmer-scoped-css doesn't let styles leak down into components that you {{yield}} to. I think @scope would, since it's talking about the DOM subtree and doesn't know anything about component invocation boundaries.

[kategengler]

@scope rules definitely affects anything beneath it in the tree. I didn't realize that glimmer-scoped-css scopes to literally only the template in the particular component.

[bitxplora]

@kategengler scoped CSS, in this case, it is scoping to component rather than element, which should be the default. If there is an agreement, that a component is a self-contained UI unit with its style.

[NullVoxPopuli]

Because it's easy to unintentionally apply your transforms to third-party code, it's not great that the current implementation repurposes the meaning of

The above comment -- making scoping opt-in instead of opt-out -- is now implemented in glimmer-scoped-css 0.6.0.

@ef4, What are the technical constraints around this?

The idea of requiring an attribute to make socped implies that we want the default to be global and that's what we want folks to be doing in their components (by default)

Is it possible to default to scoped (requiring unscoped or global to opt out) when encountering a <style> tag in a strict-mode component?

[backspace]

Before 0.6.0 unscoped was the way to opt out, the problem we were having is that the scoping AST transform of the hosting Ember application was being applied to components from an addon which caused build errors from Embroider about missing dependencies. There should be a way to make a transform only apply to one’s own components vs an addon but it wasn’t clear how.

Regardless, with the trends over the years toward explicitness vs “magic”, it also felt fitting to require scoped to opt in. There’s a template lint rule that pushes back toward opting out, in a way, in that you have to disable it to use an unscoped style. If there’s interest maybe that can be moved into the addon.

[NullVoxPopuli]

transform of the hosting Ember application was being applied to components from an addon which caused build errors from Embroider about missing dependencies. There should be a way to make a transform only apply to one’s own components vs an addon but it wasn’t clear how.

Is it not possible to fix whatever situation makes app-transforms apply to addons? How do you scope transforms to the app?

, it also felt fitting to require scoped to opt in.

It just means we think people should be writing global CSS by default -- which I think I might strongly disagree with. :-\

At least, I want the pit of Success to be scoped, because that's what folks really want. Global CSS, afaict, is the exception

[kategengler]

I strongly disagree with making the plain <style> tag do anything differently than it would do in plain html. Making the behavior of <style> different inside <template> would go against what I feel is core Ember: We don't takeover browser features. It would mean you could no longer safely paste html from elsewhere and expect it to behave exactly the same as it does outside of Ember.

The scoped attribute isn't ideal (it was a previous WHATWG proposal), but that would be enough for me to feel we weren't taking over the behavior of html.

[lukemelia]

I agree with @kategengler about not taking over normal browser behavior. I think a lint rule would be sufficient to nudge everyone in the right direction while preserving default browser behavior.

Regarding the concern of using <style scoped>... because it could be a future browser spec, perhaps we could use <style {{scoped}}>..., evocative of an element modifier?

[kategengler]

I'm less concerned about <style scoped> since it was a failed proposal, but I guess it could always come back.

[bitxplora]

The function of

[kategengler]

The function of

If <style> inside of <template> is scoped only to elements within that <template> the behavior of <style> has changed. In html, I can put a <style> tag anywhere and change, for better or worse, styles affecting the entire page.

[bitxplora]

The inline style attribute can easily be distinguished from the component-level style. If a component is a self-contained UI unit with its style, then global CSS is not the right way.

[NullVoxPopuli]

Who's putting <style> in vanilla HTML? There is <link>

[bitxplora]

It is like having

[lukemelia]

I've put

[NullVoxPopuli]

Are ya'll using strict mode/gjs/gts when you put <style> into your components? (ignoring HTML for a moment)

[bitxplora]

This is a sample .gjs file;

import { concat } from '@ember/helper';
import tippyTip from '../modifiers/tippyTip';

const tooltip = (transactionType) => {
  if (transactionType === 'fob') transactionType = 'FOB';
  return `Select the currency in which the ${transactionType} is denominated`;
};

<template>
    <div class="brand-text" >
      <label for={{( concat @transactionType "Currency") }}></label>
      <select
        id={{( concat @transactionType "Currency") }}
        name={{( concat @transactionType "Currency") }}
        class="currency-selected" autofocus="" required=""
        {{tippyTip 'mouseenter' 'top' (tooltip @transactionType)}}>
        <option value=''>CUR</option>
          {{#each @currencies as |currency|}}
            <option id={{currency}} name={{currency}} value={{currency}}>{{currency}}</option>
          {{/each}}
      </select>
    </div>
    <style>
      .currency-selected {       
        padding-left: 0.1rem;
        font-size: 0.7rem;
        min-height: 2.0rem;
      }
    </style>
</template>

[bitxplora]

I believe that styles in the component should not pollute the global CSS

[NullVoxPopuli]

I believe that styles in the component should not pollute the global CSS

aye, same

[NullVoxPopuli]

I'd like to block on on using data attributes for classes instead of classes. <3

styles aren't data, and the closer we stick the the intended semantics the better.

[ef4]

I believe that styles in the component should not pollute the global CSS

Nobody disagrees that polluting global CSS from a component is bad style. Just like manipulating javascript global variables from a component is bad style. But it would be very bad if we broke the possibility of manipulating javascript global variables from a component, because we'd be breaking Javascript. And I would argue this is the same kind of problem, and making it impossible to manipulate global styles from a component would be breaking HTML.

• <style></style> in HTML does pollute global styles. Deviating from HTML is risky and confusing.
• we could use a different syntax that doesn't already have a meaning in HTML, like <ScopedStyle></ScopedStyle>, but this has big implications for tooling. The great benefit of putting CSS inside <style> is that all the parsers and syntax highlighters and formatters already know to handle CSS correctly in that position, and none of them will understand a custom element.