![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hello - Is there any advantage to defining classes with the element name vs. without the element name? p.center {properties...} vs. .center {same properties...} I mean, if both above can be used for the "p" element, why do people include the p in the definition? |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:35:19 +0100, <rbaul... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote: Hello - Is there any advantage to defining classes with the element name vs. without the element name? p.center {properties...} vs. .center {same properties...} I mean, if both above can be used for the "p" element, why do people include the p in the definition? Because for instance ul.center should be displayed different / has other values then p.center? -- Rik Wasmus |
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Feb 6, 8:39 pm, "Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoe... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote: On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:35:19 +0100, <rbaul... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote: Hello - Is there any advantage to defining classes with the element name vs. without the element name? p.center {properties...} vs. .center {same properties...} I mean, if both above can be used for the "p" element, why do people include the p in the definition? Because for instance ul.center should be displayed different / has other values then p.center? So, with the example above, if .center contained additional properties than p.center, then the additional properties in .center would be taken on by p.center (added to the properties in p.center)? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |