Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
hello i have two codes to understand the first question is how does the * get rid of my LI list styling when i not told css to do so this is the code that getting rid of the bullet points
*{
margin:0;
padding:0;
box-sizing:border-box;
}
and my second question is about div classes i was clawing though facebook's html makeup looking for ideas and i want to know why facebook use a lot of div classes for css when most the code i looked at could easy have been put in one css class i understand css and code being reusable but most of it was just for one div and not use any where else so why would you use multi css statements for one div is this because of readability or optimization or and i missing something and sorry about my english and punctuation
To get the margin and padding back to the <ul><li> just set it after you used the * see here: http://jsfiddle.net/8mbrn3ra/
*{
margin:0;
padding:0;
box-sizing:border-box;
}
ul, li {
margin: 10px;
padding: 10px;
}
The other part of your question: I don't know why facebook does the things it does. But one reason could be that you have a div as a wrapper of things. If this div has a class with given styles and you want to use them somewhere else you just need to set the class to the wrapper. Understand what I mean?
Related
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
there is a problem that I have had since I started using CSS everything selector [*] with multiple [:not()].
Examples below does not work as I tried:
.post-body *:not(.has-color):not(.has-bg){
color: red
}
.post-body *:not(.has-color)*:not(.has-bg){
color: red
}
.post-body *:not(.has-color .has-bg){
color: red
}
.post-body *:not(.has-color , .has-bg){
color: red
}
Imagine something like WordPress post content; I can not change the content whole structure but I do need to set a primary color for texts which do not have a specific background or text color. So I am trying to set Red Color to any element except elements that contain ".has-color" or ".has-bg" that is it there is no relation between them.
Has somebody solved this issue or even seemed to something like this?
Your first example should work, as shown in this CodePen, but as Louys notes, it’s hard to tell without any markup.
.post-body *:not(.has-color):not(.has-bg) {
color: red;
}
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm thinking about css refacto in my job, and i'm wondering if it's a good idea (considering best practices) to create css class with only one property.
A simple example, is it usefull to create many classes this way
.center-text {
text-align: center;
}
What's the best between doing this or using small libs like Knacss (if you know it) for example.
BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH CSS CLASSES: THEIR LOCATION INSIDE YOUR FILE / CODE MATTERS!!
lets assume we have this html element:
<div class="test altr">some text</div>
this css file:
.test
{
color: red;
}
.altr
{
color: blue;
}
will result in a blue text (the div has those 2 classes). BUT this file will result with a red color:
.altr
{
color: blue;
}
.test
{
color: red;
}
the order of command in css is determine by the css file (and not the order inside the html class attribute)
not to mention that the physical order between and tags inside your html alo affects the order of commands in css (last command override all previous commands)
so.. whatever you do - please be careful with that
One minor drawback I see is the amount of text in your HTML will increase slightly due to pile up of classes. Not best SEO practices, but it's minor.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions concerning problems with code you've written must describe the specific problem — and include valid code to reproduce it — in the question itself. See SSCCE.org for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I have created two buttons (more like stole them by following random tutorials)
http://cssdesk.com/bfwj9
What I would like to do is to have these two buttons side by side in this manner
Choose one: [play_button] [stop_button]
How do I go about ensuring that they end up on the same line?
I am a complete css newbie, but I learn by doing rather than reading all these complex css commands. So can someone help me please?
#play_button
{
float:left;
}
#stop_button
{
float:left;
}
Add this to your CSS:
#container_button { float: left; }
To add a little spacing inbetween them, you could even add margin-right: 1em;.
The reason this works is that your two buttons are block level elements, and float allows them to sit side by each other.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Is this CSS code valid? If not, how will it affect the rest of the page?
<style type="text/css">
.detpage .fieldarea-row { position: static;!important;}
</style>
You have 1 semicolon too much. But shouldn't impact the rest.
<style type="text/css">
.detpage .fieldarea-row { position: static !important;}
</style>
No, it's not valid. your !important is just dangling there because youv'e "closed" the declaration early:
.detpage .fieldarea-row {
position: static !important;
^---- no ;
}
as for what it'll do. no way to tell. css just gives some rules to change layout/looks when things match, but you've provided nothing to show what this rule would apply to.
I would go like this
.detpage .fieldarea-row { position: static !important; }
and put the style in a separate CSS file, to avoid mixing CSS with HTML codes.
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator says that it's invalid, and that therefore the entire statement is invalid/ignored.
I'm not sure whether it's true though that the whole statement will be ignored (because that contradicts my understanding of CSS error recovery specification).
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
In the code below, we have for the section class="body" and a different class for each of ol, li. h2 , footer and div. What is the use of mentioning class="body" in the section when we don't apply it anywhere? In case we give a css for the "body", how will it be reflected in the code?
http://coding.smashingmagazine.com/2009/08/04/designing-a-html-5-layout-from-scratch/
If you read the article that you posted a link to... you should find the following...
LIMITING OUR BLOCKS
Some of you might have noticed how I added the class="body" attribute to the major sections of the layout in the markup. This is because we want the body of my website to be for a certain width (800px), and I've never been a fan of the big wrapping <div> to do that. So we'll use the basic block centering technique using margins for this. I'm also adding a couple of generic classes to this section that might be used for a post side content.
Layout
.body {clear: both; margin: 0 auto; width: 800px;}
img.right >figure.right {float: right; margin: 0 0 2em 2em;}
img.left, figure.left {float: right; >margin: 0 0 2em 2em;}
...end quote...
In general terms, if you don't reference a class name in css or JavaScript then there is not much of a purpose in including it in your html.
If you add a css rule like the following:
.body {*css rules*}
...then wherever you have class="body" those rules will be applied to it.
Hope that helps