CSS Gardening
-
Why is
.tree's position relative?wrote last edited by [email protected]It's so the
position: absolutefor.leavesworks relative to.tree. The implication is that.leavesis a descendant of.tree.position: absolutelooks for the nearest ancestor with a set position in order to determine its own positioning context. Otherwise the absolute positioning would basically be relative to the viewport. If theposition: relativewas missing, the leaves would be against the bottom edge of the image.edit: I mean
.leaves, not.branch -
Sadly
position: top;is not valid css. It should say
position: absolute; bottom: 0px;Still funny though.
Ah, the author fixed it. Good job.
-
Ah, the author fixed it. Good job.
Thank God, that would’ve eaten me alive
-
Needed for the
.leaves’ absolute positioning to be relative to the tree, and not relative to the universe.Damn, I thought you were going to take me out to dinner first
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
Came to say the same. I've never taken it so literally.
-
Sadly
position: top;is not valid css. It should say
position: absolute; bottom: 0px;Still funny though.
You design people and your pedantry.
> /dev/nullfor you.Jk, you're fine.
-
Okay, nun weiß ich wie man Scharmbehaarung programmiert....
Sprich Angelsächsisch du Hurensohn!
-
Sadly
position: top;is not valid css. It should say
position: absolute; bottom: 0px;Still funny though.
The
pxis making me eyes itch. -
This is mad_css!!
THIS IS SPARTAAA
-
THIS IS SPARTAAA
Hach, dachte fast den checkt keiner.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Saw this post about "CSS Gardening," and I'm reminded of debugging my first responsive website. Did anyone else spend hours wrestling with margins and padding, only to realize it was a typo in the media query? I did! Now I meticulously check my syntax.
