Mailing List Archive: Re: [8559] Fixed a small CSS syntax error.

Re: [8559] Fixed a small CSS syntax error.

Apr 6, 2009, 10:44 PM

Post #1 of 4 (3277 views)

On 7/4/09 05:59, brewt@bricolage.cc wrote:
> --- bricolage/trunk/comp/media/css/style.css 2009-04-07 01:28:44 UTC (rev 8558)
> +++ bricolage/trunk/comp/media/css/style.css 2009-04-07 04:59:03 UTC (rev 8559)
> @@ -421,7 +421,7 @@
> div.popup-menu h4 {
> display: block;
> font-size: .9em;
> - padding: 1em, .2em;
> + padding: .2em;
> margin: 0;
> background: #EAEAEA;
> color: #999;
>
The fix for this should probably have been:

padding: 1em .2em;

Only removing the coma. Removing the `1em` rule would collapse the `top`
and `bottom` padding and might not look as intended. Unless the default
was equivalent to the removed dimension. Did you check that this
displayed correctly?

Regards,
Adeola

--
Creative Developer - Digital Craftsmen Ltd
Exmouth House, 3 Pine Street
London, EC1R 0JH
t: +44 20 7183 1410
f: +44 20 7099 5140
m: +44 75 9527 7886
w: http://www.digitalcraftsmen.net/

Re: [8559] Fixed a small CSS syntax error. [ In reply to ]

adrian at gossamer-threads

Apr 6, 2009, 11:14 PM

Post #2 of 4 (3111 views)

Permalink

> The fix for this should probably have been:
>
> padding: 1em .2em;
>
> Only removing the coma. Removing the `1em` rule would collapse the `top`
> and `bottom` padding and might not look as intended. Unless the default
> was equivalent to the removed dimension. Did you check that this
> displayed correctly?

Yes I did test it - hence my commit message. With 1em top/bottom padding, it
looks nothing like what browsers are currently rendering it as. Actually, from
how browsers were rendering it before, I think browsers were just ignoring that
rule completely.

Adrian

Re: [8559] Fixed a small CSS syntax error. [ In reply to ]

adeola at digitalcraftsmen

Apr 6, 2009, 11:28 PM

Post #3 of 4 (3095 views)

Permalink

On 7/4/09 07:14, Adrian Yee wrote:
>> The fix for this should probably have been:
>>
>> padding: 1em .2em;
>>
>> Only removing the coma. Removing the `1em` rule would collapse the `top`
>> and `bottom` padding and might not look as intended. Unless the default
>> was equivalent to the removed dimension. Did you check that this
>> displayed correctly?
>>
>
> Yes I did test it - hence my commit message. With 1em top/bottom padding, it
> looks nothing like what browsers are currently rendering it as. Actually, from
> how browsers were rendering it before, I think browsers were just ignoring that
> rule completely.
>
Cool. Nice one Adrian ;-)

Adeola.

--
Creative Developer - Digital Craftsmen Ltd
Exmouth House, 3 Pine Street
London, EC1R 0JH
t: +44 20 7183 1410
f: +44 20 7099 5140
m: +44 75 9527 7886
w: http://www.digitalcraftsmen.net/

Re: [8559] Fixed a small CSS syntax error. [ In reply to ]

david at kineticode

Apr 7, 2009, 7:32 AM

Post #4 of 4 (3094 views)

Permalink

On Apr 6, 2009, at 11:28 PM, Adeola Awoyemi wrote:

>> Yes I did test it - hence my commit message. With 1em top/bottom
>> padding, it
>> looks nothing like what browsers are currently rendering it as.
>> Actually, from
>> how browsers were rendering it before, I think browsers were just
>> ignoring that
>> rule completely.
>>
> Cool. Nice one Adrian ;-)

Since there have been quite a few questions about some of these CSS
changes, you can expect them again in the future. Would you mind
putting comments in the appropriate places so that the answers are
right there when someone looks at the code again in 2 years? I know
you put in a few comments already, but perhaps a few more would be
prudent.

Thanks,

David