|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 06/20/06 08:22
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:
> Line : 124 (Level : 2) You have some absolute and relative
> lengths in padding. This is not a robust style sheet.
>
> I got above from http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator for:
>
> padding: 0 0 0 1%;
>
> I leave the 4 "values" as I work to try this and that as a
> convenience, I realise padding:0 and/or padding-left:1% would do
> too (though this gets a "warning" of a different kind not the
> subject of this post, though if you want to comment, feel free -
> I do this a lot too as it is so convenient and ignore the warning)
>
> I was surprised at 0 0 0 1% being able to confuse any browser -
> how could it happen? What would be a case where 0 as relative
> would make a difference to 0 as absolute? Or this warning not
> very good in that it does not take account of the special case of
> zero? Perhaps that is it?
>
> 1% left margin div that is child of a body that defaults to
> roughly browser window is 1% of the width of body? Yes? So 0% is
> slap bang against the body left edge. But then so is 0px or 0cm
> for left margin.
The warning is completely bogus.
Suppose I have an image I want 8px from container left but margined right
at 1% of container width? The markup is:
<img style="margin:0 1% 0 8px" src="da.gif" alt="">
How does that make the page or ss "non-robust"? I think the w3c is a
little too full of itself, or a little too full of something.
--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|