Sent by Sarah Atkinson on 1 March 2005 18:06
-----Original Message-----
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Bob McClelland wrote:
>
>> I've noticed that, quite often, some folk use classes of the type:
>>
>> div#links {etc . . .}
>>
>> whereas I would just use :
>>
>> #links {etc . . .}
>>
>> So, seeing as some of those who do this are pretty darn good at it, I
>> presume there is a reason for the 'div'?
>
On Mar 1, 2005, at 2:40 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Mostly it's probably just a matter of habit. And maybe some people
> think
> that div#links looks a bit more clear intuitively (though this point
> is more relevant when selectors like .foo versu div.foo are used - the
> lone "." before a name can be rather unnoticeable).
I have a question about this.
I have had a class or ID not work when previewing. Lets say the CSS is
this:
#foo {whatever}
And when I preview, whatever markup I am trying to style doesn't *take*
what I am trying to do. However, if I add a more precise definition by
adding something like this:
td#foo {whatever}
Suddenly the cell I am trying to style does what I want. Without adding
"td" it doesn't work.
Do others experience this, or am I crazy? -- which is entirely possible
;-P
-Bert
______________________________________________________________________
I have had a few similar problems And I think that it is due to inheritance.
Sarah
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
