Assigning css properties.

[Luke Matuszewski]

When i assign some css properties should i allways use the postfix like
measurment units (so use: 150px instead of only 150).
Please answer. Waitin.

 

[RobG]

When i assign some css properties should i allways use the postfix like
measurment units (so use: 150px instead of only 150).
Please answer. Waitin.

All length values must have units unless they are set to zero (0).

"The format of a length value (denoted by <length> in this
specification) is a <number> (with or without a decimal point)
immediately followed by a unit identifier (e.g., px, em, etc.).
After a zero length, the unit identifier is optional."


<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units>

 

[Danny]

Yes. Unless is a zero value

Danny

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units>

CSS 2.1 is currently a Working Draft inappropriate to cite
as reference material.

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/syndata.html#length-units>


PointedEars

 

[RobG]

RobG wrote:




CSS 2.1 is currently a Working Draft inappropriate to cite
as reference material.

Aww, come on Thomas

While you are strictly correct, I don't see the harm in pointing to CSS
2.1. It is a replacement for (and a cleanup of) CSS 2 and is a "Last
Call" Working Draft, the deadline for comments was 15 July 2005. It
should become a Candidate Recommendation pretty soon, I guess once the
test suite is completed.

The W3C link to it from their CSS page rather than CSS 2.

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/syndata.html#length-units>

Or:

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#length-units>

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Aww, come on Thomas

While you are strictly correct, I don't see the harm in pointing to
CSS 2.1.

I do, if it is referred to other than as "work in progress".

It is a replacement for (and a cleanup of) CSS 2 and is a "Last Call"
Working Draft, the deadline for comments was 15 July 2005. It should
become a Candidate Recommendation pretty soon, I guess once the test
suite is completed.

As the CSS2 Errata clearly state, CSS 2.1 should be considered
only proposed errata for CSS2 if it is still a working draft.

In fact, CSS2.1 already was a CR (as of 2004-02-25, if you followed
the "Previous version" link), which also was determined by itself to
be inappropriate to cite as reference material etc. pp. At least
now you know why.

The W3C link to it from their CSS page rather than CSS 2.

Yes, sometimes they do not follow their very own standards.

Or:

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#length-units>

That is not the same thing. Once CSS 2.1 becomes a REC, it
will be probably available through the former URI reference.


PointedEars