jQuery is independent of your css library choice, and I'm a little confused on how using a CSS preprocessor would help. That seems like a separate problem. SCSS guide here: https://www.codecademy.com/learn/learn-sass Right now most people say Sass, but really it's SCSS. There are two syntaxes available for Sass. The first, known as SCSS (Sassy CSS) and used throughout this reference, is an extension of the syntax of CSS. This means that every valid CSS stylesheet is a valid SCSS file with the same meaning. In addition, SCSS understands most CSS hacks and vendor-specific syntax, such as IE’s old filter syntax. This syntax is enhanced with the Sass features described below. Files using this syntax have the .scss extension. The second and older syntax, known as the indented syntax (or sometimes just “Sass”), provides a more concise way of writing CSS. It uses indentation rather than brackets to indicate nesting of selectors, and newlines rather than semicolons to separate properties. Some people find this to be easier to read and quicker to write than SCSS. The indented syntax has all the same features, although some of them have slightly different syntax; this is described in the indented syntax reference. Files using this syntax have the .sass extension. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5654447/whats-the-difference-between-scss-and-sass http://sass-lang.com/documentation/file.SASS_REFERENCE.html#syntax My company uses Bootstrap, Bootstrap uses SCSS, so I use SCSS.

Sass is a CSS pre-processor with syntax advancements. Style sheets in the advanced syntax are processed by the program, and turned into regular CSS style sheets. However, they do not extend the CSS standard itself.

CSS variables are supported and can be utilized but not as well as pre-processor variables.

For the difference between SCSS and Sass, this text on the Sass documentation page should answer the question:

The SCSS syntax uses the file extension .scss. With a few small exceptions, it’s a superset of CSS, which means essentially all valid CSS is valid SCSS as well. Because of its similarity to CSS, it’s the easiest syntax to get used to and the most popular.

The indented syntax was Sass’s original syntax, and so it uses the file extension .sass. Because of this extension, it’s sometimes just called “Sass”. The indented syntax supports all the same features as SCSS, but it uses indentation instead of curly braces and semicolons to describe the format of the document.

However, all this works only with the Sass pre-compiler which in the end creates CSS. It is not an extension to the CSS standard itself.

From the sass docs There are two syntaxes available for Sass. The first, known as SCSS (Sassy CSS) and used throughout this reference, is an extension of the syntax of CSS3. This means that every valid CSS3 stylesheet is a valid SCSS file with the same meaning. In addition, SCSS understands most CSS hacks and vendor-specific syntax, such as IE’s old filter syntax. This syntax is enhanced with the Sass features described below. Files using this syntax have the .scss extension. The second and older syntax, known as the indented syntax (or sometimes just “Sass”), provides a more concise way of writing CSS. It uses indentation rather than brackets to indicate nesting of selectors, and newlines rather than semicolons to separate properties. Some people find this to be easier to read and quicker to write than SCSS. The indented syntax has all the same features, although some of them have slightly different syntax; this is described in the indented syntax reference. Files using this syntax have the .sass extension. http://sass-lang.com/documentation/file.SASS_REFERENCE.html

I can't think of a good reason :)

I looked at the whole set of slides, I think the presenter (who is also a connected to the SASS project, I think anyway?) is of the mindset to use what you know to "get 'er done"

Sass is supposedly shorter and more concise and it's possible that the speaker knows Sass inside out, but speaking from personal experience having read and written CSS for over 10 years I find SCSS much more intuitive. I do not have to learn the Sass indentation rules, and the brackets in SCSS and CSS provide visual indentation clues for nesting - which is very like most every other language uses, so anyone from a programming/coding background would be familiar with the idea of closing the nests??

.. more importantly every valid CSS is already a valid SCSS so no conversion needed to start using it - e.g. I was able to take my Drupal sheets (all 29 of them!), change their extension and recompile/compress them in very little time.. since then I've been able to take a little chunk at a time and "Sassify" it, using nesting etc. and I still like to see the brackets and semi-colons, it matters not, which you use once it's all compiled anyway!

IMHO Sass itself is too high a barrier to entry for a large project (existing one, i.e. one not built/sassified from scratch), where as it can be modularised with SCSS

So to follow the original author's (of the slideshow) thinking rather than debate pro's and cons I'll just keep using the one I know TYVM :)

If you want to continue to use the indented syntax, than yes your files need to end in .sass. The video lesson only focused on the .scss bracket syntax, and assumed the user had not used sass before. You'll notice they never touched the indent syntax version of it. Whether you name your files .sass or .scss will determine what syntax the parser expects. That hasn't changed that I'm aware of.

There's no benefit to splintering the Sass tag for the purpose of differentiating between sass and scss syntax.

• Tags are supposed to useful for future users, not just the asker: users are by far more likely to search for "sass" than "scss"
• All examples on the Sass website use the scss syntax (the old site design used to show both syntaxes side by side)
• While scss syntax is the preferred syntax among users, the name of the preprocessor is still Sass and so is command to compile Sass files
• Sass and scss can be used within the same project as long as you don't try and mix syntaxes within the same file
• Google for sass css and scss css: the later will give about half as many results

and SASS 3 is an addition to SASS(2?) which uses the new Syntax. there is a difference

I don't understand the point being made here. Every version of Sass includes new features just like every other piece of software on the planet. There's just not enough Sass related questions to warrant breaking down the tag by version or syntax.

The appropriate thing to do is make [scss] a synonym of [sass] rather than make it a full fledged tag. As already stated, [scss] is a synonym of [sass] on Stack Overflow. Before I proposed the synonym over there, questions with the [scss] tag were few and far between and nearly all questions with the [sass] tag were using the scss syntax anyway.