Pros of minireset.css

• Smaller file size, leading to faster load times
• More aggressive reset, providing a cleaner slate for custom styling
• Simpler and more straightforward approach to CSS resets

Cons of minireset.css

• Less browser compatibility support compared to normalize.css
• Fewer opinionated defaults, requiring more manual styling
• May remove some useful default styles that normalize.css preserves

Code Comparison

minireset.css:

html,
body,
p,
ol,
ul,
li,
dl,
dt,
dd,
blockquote,
figure,
fieldset,
legend,
textarea,
pre,
iframe,
hr,
h1,
h2,
h3,
h4,
h5,
h6 {
  margin: 0;
  padding: 0;
}

normalize.css:

html {
  line-height: 1.15;
  -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;
}

body {
  margin: 0;
}

main {
  display: block;
}

The code comparison shows that minireset.css takes a more aggressive approach by resetting margins and paddings for many elements, while normalize.css focuses on specific adjustments to improve consistency across browsers.

Pros of sanitize.css

• More comprehensive reset, including additional elements and properties
• Includes opinionated defaults for better cross-browser consistency
• Actively maintained with more frequent updates

Cons of sanitize.css

• Larger file size due to more extensive resets
• May require more customization to override opinionated defaults
• Less widely adopted compared to normalize.css

Code Comparison

normalize.css:

html {
  line-height: 1.15;
  -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;
}
body {
  margin: 0;
}

sanitize.css:

*, ::before, ::after {
  box-sizing: border-box;
}
html {
  cursor: default;
  line-height: 1.5;
  -moz-tab-size: 4;
  tab-size: 4;
  -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent;
}

Both normalize.css and sanitize.css aim to provide a consistent starting point for web projects by addressing browser inconsistencies. normalize.css focuses on preserving useful browser defaults while correcting common bugs, while sanitize.css takes a more opinionated approach with additional resets and defaults.

normalize.css is widely adopted and has a smaller file size, making it a popular choice for projects that require minimal resets. sanitize.css offers more comprehensive normalization and includes modern CSS features, making it suitable for projects that need a more thorough reset and are willing to customize the defaults as needed.

The choice between the two depends on project requirements, desired level of normalization, and willingness to work with opinionated defaults.

Pros of Water.css

• Provides a complete, ready-to-use styling solution out of the box
• Offers a more opinionated design with a modern, minimalist aesthetic
• Includes styling for a wider range of HTML elements

Cons of Water.css

• Less flexible for custom designs due to its opinionated nature
• Larger file size, which may impact page load times
• May require more overrides to achieve a specific look

Code Comparison

Normalize.css focuses on normalizing default styles:

html {
  line-height: 1.15;
  -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;
}

Water.css provides complete styling for elements:

body {
  font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Roboto', 'Oxygen', 'Ubuntu', 'Cantarell', 'Fira Sans', 'Droid Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;
  line-height: 1.4;
  max-width: 800px;
  margin: 20px auto;
  padding: 0 10px;
  color: #363636;
  background: #ffffff;
}

Normalize.css is better suited for projects requiring a clean slate for custom designs, while Water.css is ideal for quickly creating visually appealing websites with minimal effort. The choice between the two depends on the project's specific needs and the desired level of customization.

Pros of Sakura

• Provides a complete, opinionated design out of the box
• Lightweight and minimal, with a focus on readability
• Easy to implement with a single CSS file

Cons of Sakura

• Less flexible for custom designs compared to Normalize.css
• May require overriding styles for specific project needs
• Not as widely adopted or maintained as Normalize.css

Code Comparison

Sakura:

html {
  font-size: 62.5%;
  font-family: serif;
}
body {
  font-size: 1.8rem;
  line-height: 1.618;
}

Normalize.css:

html {
  line-height: 1.15;
  -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;
}
body {
  margin: 0;
}

Sakura provides a complete styling solution with specific font sizes and families, while Normalize.css focuses on normalizing default styles across browsers without imposing a particular design.

Normalize.css is more widely used and maintained, offering a solid foundation for custom designs. Sakura, on the other hand, provides a quick and easy way to create a visually appealing website with minimal effort, but may require more customization for specific project needs.

Both projects serve different purposes: Normalize.css aims to create a consistent base for custom designs, while Sakura offers a ready-to-use, opinionated style for rapid development.

Pros of Tacit

• Provides a complete CSS framework with pre-styled elements, not just normalization
• Aims for a "no-CSS" look, making it easy to create simple, clean designs
• Smaller file size (about 4KB) compared to Normalize.css (about 8KB)

Cons of Tacit

• Less flexible for custom designs due to opinionated styling
• May require overriding styles for more complex layouts
• Not as widely adopted or maintained as Normalize.css

Code Comparison

Normalize.css:

html {
  line-height: 1.15;
  -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;
}
body {
  margin: 0;
}

Tacit:

body {
  font-family: sans-serif;
  line-height: 1.5;
  margin: 0;
  padding: 1em;
}

Normalize.css focuses on normalizing browser inconsistencies, while Tacit provides a complete styling solution. Normalize.css is more widely used and maintained, offering greater flexibility for custom designs. Tacit, on the other hand, offers a quick way to create simple, clean layouts without writing additional CSS, but may require more overrides for complex designs.

Pros of MVP

• Provides a complete, opinionated CSS framework with pre-styled elements
• Offers a more visually appealing default design out of the box
• Includes responsive design features and mobile-friendly layouts

Cons of MVP

• Larger file size due to additional styling and components
• Less flexibility for custom designs, as it imposes a specific aesthetic
• May require overriding styles for projects with unique design requirements

Code Comparison

MVP:

:root {
    --border-radius: 5px;
    --box-shadow: 2px 2px 10px;
    --color: #118bee;
    --color-accent: #118bee15;
    --color-bg: #fff;
    --color-bg-secondary: #e9e9e9;
    --color-secondary: #920de9;
    --color-secondary-accent: #920de90b;
    --color-shadow: #f4f4f4;
    --color-text: #000;
    --color-text-secondary: #999;
    --font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;
    --hover-brightness: 1.2;
    --justify-important: center;
    --justify-normal: left;
    --line-height: 1.5;
    --width-card: 285px;
    --width-card-medium: 460px;
    --width-card-wide: 800px;
    --width-content: 1080px;
}

Normalize.css:

html {
  line-height: 1.15;
  -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;
}

body {
  margin: 0;
}

main {
  display: block;
}