Hey mate :)
Interesting question, I think this one comes down to the dev environment...
If you're the only person who will be working on this (ie: it's a
personal project) then using what you've got and adding an informative
comment would be enough.
On the other hand, if I saw this at work I would def. insist that they
change it to something like the following:
h1, #head ul {
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
position: absolute;
width: 100px;
height: 100px;
top: 10px;
left: 10px;
background: url(some.img) no-repeat;
overflow: hidden;
}
#head ul { list-style: none; }
If there is any chance at all that you may want to add more UL
specific rules, I would split it up now.
While it is valid, applying innapproriate properties to elements is
habit worth avoiding :)
cheers,
Andrew.
On 8/17/05, Jan Brasna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all.
How much appropriate is attaching eg. list-style to a definition for eg.
heading, when I want to set it for more elements, but avoid splitting
the definition in two?
Example:
h1, #head ul {
list-style: none;
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
position: absolute;
width: 100px;
height: 100px;
top: 10px;
left: 10px;
background: url(some.img) no-repeat;
overflow: hidden;
}
Can the list-style attached also to h1 make some confusion?
Thanks, Jan.
--
Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
--
http://leftjustified.net/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
