Re: [css-d] td:nth-child(2) negation?

[Rob Freeman]

Please unsubscribe me from the list

lister...@gmail.com



> On 3 Aug 2017, at 10:38, Gautam Sathe  wrote:
> 
> On Thursday 03 August 2017 02:12 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
>> td:not([colspan=2]):nth-child(2) {}
> 
> I missed the "=2" in the colspan :) Good to learn a new trick.
> 
> Thanks Philippe.
> --
> Gautam Sathe
> __
> css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
> List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
> List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Basic questions about the box model

[Georg]

Den 13.08.2017 23.04, skrev Ezequiel Garzón:

What a treat, Georg! THIS kind of insight is what I was hoping for.
I'll try to accept the standards more as a given and not to think too
much about foundational issues, though sometimes these aspects
intrigue me.
I get that. Curiosity is good ... just don't try to find pure logic 
behind//everything you run into, as it may not lead to much. And, there 
will always be bugs...



For instance, and as an aside, while it's commonly
claimed that floats were not intended for layout, Wium Lie rejects
this notion in https://dev.opera.com/articles/css-twenty-years-hakon/.
It is "highly illogical" that we should avoid the use of any 
design-technique that actually works, just because someone else in the 
profession happens not to like it. We just have to learn to master all 
the various techniques - in depth and in combination, so we can choose 
the best solutions for each task at hand.


As one who has, and still is, using floats for just about everything the 
technique works well for - and then some, I am well aware of the 
arguments against floats for layout that have  been "floating around" 
for decades. Has never bothered me, and some of my first inspirations 
for the more intricate uses of floats for layout was derived from the 
code behind Wium Lie's early articles on the W3C site.



Thanks again.

You're welcome.

regards
Georg
__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/

Re: [css-d] Basic questions about the box model

[Ezequiel Garzón]

What a treat, Georg! THIS kind of insight is what I was hoping for.
I'll try to accept the standards more as a given and not to think too
much about foundational issues, though sometimes these aspects
intrigue me. For instance, and as an aside, while it's commonly
claimed that floats were not intended for layout, Wium Lie rejects
this notion in https://dev.opera.com/articles/css-twenty-years-hakon/.

Thanks again.

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 2:49 AM, Georg  wrote:
> Den 12.08.2017 20.52, skrev Ezequiel Garzón:
>>
>> Georg, while I haven't gone over the standard in depth, I assumed the
>> rendering I saw in all browsers was compliant, and in that sense
>> logical and expected. I was shooting for something along the lines of
>> why you think it was defined this way.
>
>
> Well, I do not even know if that particular behavior was /intentionally/
> /defined/, or if it came about by accident...
>
> Look at it this way: the first browsers was developed without much of what
> we may call "standards", and there was _no_ CSS to begin with. Standards
> came later, and those first standard bodies simply picked up what there was
> some agreement about between competing browser developers, and mainly wrote
> "status quo" at the time into standards for HTML.
> Even later, when the first - basic - CSS standards was formulated, they kept
> on building those on "status quo" in the browser world, while trying to
> refine these standards in such a way that browser developers would come on
> board and actually develop browsers that (more or less) followed the same
> standards, in order to achieve interoperability.
> Lots of "less logical solutions" got dropped as standards organs - mainly
> the W3C - wrote and cleaned up standards, but there are still plenty "less
> logical" stuff left in today's standards from way back in the browser war
> era. Some of the old stuff is also left in today's standards to assure that
> new browsers that /follow /standards can render quite old pages /somewhat/
> acceptable.
>
> So, I don't know /who /- once upon a time - defined this particular behavior
> - some browser developer or a standard body, or /why/ they did it. Clearly
> noone has found good reasons to change it over the years, so now we are kind
> of stuck with it. As standards have evolved to provide us with ways to code
> around and/or avoid old behaviors that we don't like, it should not cause us
> any real problems for us today.
>
> regards
> Georg
>
> __
> css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
> List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
> List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/