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
******************************************************
