CSS Gardening

[bleistift2@sopuli.xyz]

This post did not contain any content.

[shovingleopardnsfw@lemmynsfw.com]

Sadly

position: top;

is not valid css. It should say

position: absolute;
bottom: 0px;

Still funny though.

[nichehervielleicht@feddit.org]

Okay, nun weiß ich wie man Scharmbehaarung programmiert....

[bleistift2@sopuli.xyz]

Das ist nicht _iel.

[samsy@lemmy.ml]

This is mad_css!!

[yetanotheruser@lemmy.ca]

Why is .tree's position relative?

[michal@programming.dev]

If you trim that bush, it'll seem larger

[bleistift2@sopuli.xyz]

Needed for the .leaves’ absolute positioning to be relative to the tree, and not relative to the universe.

[bleistift2@sopuli.xyz]

Und *Scham

[nichehervielleicht@feddit.org]

Scharm ^^

[bleakbluets@lemmy.world]

It's so the position: absolute for .leaves works relative to .tree. The implication is that .leaves is a descendant of .tree.

position: absolute looks 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 the position: relative was missing, the leaves would be against the bottom edge of the image.

source

edit: I mean .leaves, not .branch

[shovingleopardnsfw@lemmynsfw.com]

Ah, the author fixed it. Good job.

[hemmes@lemmy.world]

Thank God, that would’ve eaten me alive

[hemmes@lemmy.world]

Damn, I thought you were going to take me out to dinner first

[who@feddit.org]

https://csszengarden.com/

[some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org]

Came to say the same. I've never taken it so literally.

[some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org]

You design people and your pedantry. > /dev/null for you.

Jk, you're fine.

[subarctictundra@lemmy.ml]

Sprich Angelsächsisch du Hurensohn!

[anguo@piefed.ca]

The px is making me eyes itch.

[bleistift2@sopuli.xyz]

THIS IS SPARTAAA