modern-normalize

Pros of normalize.css

• Broader browser support, including older versions
• More comprehensive normalization of HTML elements
• Longer-standing project with a larger community

Cons of normalize.css

• Larger file size, potentially impacting performance
• Includes unnecessary styles for modern browsers
• Less frequent updates compared to modern-normalize

Code Comparison

normalize.css:

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

modern-normalize:

*,::after,::before{box-sizing:border-box}
html {
  line-height: 1.15;
  -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;
  -moz-tab-size: 4;
  tab-size: 4;
}

modern-normalize focuses on modern browsers, resulting in a smaller file size and more targeted normalization. It includes newer CSS properties like box-sizing and tab-size, which are not present in normalize.css.

normalize.css offers broader compatibility but at the cost of increased file size and potentially outdated styles. It normalizes more HTML elements, which can be beneficial for projects requiring support for older browsers.

modern-normalize is more lightweight and frequently updated, making it ideal for projects targeting modern browsers. However, it may not provide sufficient normalization for projects that need to support older browser versions.

The choice between these two libraries depends on the project's specific requirements, target audience, and browser support needs.

Pros of minireset.css

• More lightweight and minimalistic approach
• Focuses on resetting default styles without adding opinionated defaults
• Easier to customize and build upon for specific project needs

Cons of minireset.css

• Less comprehensive browser normalization
• May require more manual styling for cross-browser consistency
• Doesn't address some modern browser features and elements

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;
}

modern-normalize:

*,
::before,
::after {
  box-sizing: border-box;
}

html {
  line-height: 1.15;
  -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;
  -moz-tab-size: 4;
  tab-size: 4;
}

The code comparison shows that minireset.css takes a more aggressive approach to resetting default styles, while modern-normalize focuses on normalizing behavior across browsers and addressing modern web standards. modern-normalize provides a more nuanced approach to cross-browser consistency, while minireset.css offers a clean slate for custom styling.

Pros of sanitize.css

• More comprehensive normalization, covering a wider range of elements and properties
• Includes additional features like form control styling and typography improvements
• Actively maintained with frequent updates and community contributions

Cons of sanitize.css

• Larger file size due to more extensive coverage
• May require more customization to override certain styles if not desired
• Potentially more opinionated in some style choices

Code Comparison

sanitize.css:

textarea {
  resize: vertical;
}

[hidden] {
  display: none;
}

:root {
  -moz-tab-size: 4;
  tab-size: 4;
}

modern-normalize:

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

body {
  margin: 0;
}

Both projects aim to provide a solid foundation for web development by normalizing browser styles. sanitize.css offers a more comprehensive approach with additional features, while modern-normalize focuses on a minimal, modern baseline. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, desired level of customization, and performance considerations.

Pros of water.css

• Provides a complete, ready-to-use CSS framework for quick styling
• Offers a classless design, allowing for easy implementation without modifying HTML
• Includes dark mode support out of the box

Cons of water.css

• Larger file size due to more comprehensive styling
• Less flexibility for customization compared to a minimal reset
• May require overriding styles for more complex designs

Code Comparison

modern-normalize:

*, ::before, ::after {
  box-sizing: border-box;
}

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

water.css:

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;
}

modern-normalize focuses on normalizing browser defaults, while water.css provides a complete styling solution. modern-normalize is more lightweight and flexible, ideal for custom designs. water.css offers quick, attractive styling without classes, suitable for rapid prototyping or simple projects.

Pros of MVP

• More comprehensive styling, including pre-styled elements and utility classes
• Includes a dark mode option out of the box
• Offers a wider range of pre-built components and layouts

Cons of MVP

• Larger file size due to more extensive styling
• Less focused on normalization and more on providing a complete CSS framework
• May require more customization to achieve a unique design

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;
}

modern-normalize:

*,
::before,
::after {
  box-sizing: border-box;
}

html {
  line-height: 1.15;
  -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;
  -moz-tab-size: 4;
  tab-size: 4;
}

Pros of Sakura

• Provides a complete, opinionated CSS framework for quick, elegant styling
• Focuses on typography and readability, especially for text-heavy sites
• Offers a classless design, allowing for easy implementation without modifying HTML

Cons of Sakura

• Less flexible and customizable compared to Modern Normalize
• May require overriding styles for more complex layouts or designs
• Larger file size due to its comprehensive nature

Code Comparison

Modern Normalize:

*, ::before, ::after {
  box-sizing: border-box;
}

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

Sakura:

html {
  font-size: 62.5%;
  font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Arial, "Noto Sans", sans-serif;
}

body {
  font-size: 1.8rem;
  line-height: 1.618;
  max-width: 38em;
  margin: auto;
  color: #4a4a4a;
  background-color: #f9f9f9;
  padding: 13px;
}

Modern Normalize focuses on normalizing browser styles, while Sakura provides a complete styling solution with predefined typography and layout rules.