css selecter question

11-14-2003

Hi,
I was told that doing somehing like this is not valid CSS. I would like to
get a second opinion please....

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>my title</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<style type="text/css">

</style>
</head>
<body>
<table class="dog">
<tr>
<th>header row data</th>
<th>header row data</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="toprow">top row data</td>
<td class="toprow">top row data</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>not</td>
<td>not</td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Please note the style block, and please tell me if there is something not
perfect about the construction of the selector ".dog td.toprow { ... }"

If this is invalid, can you please give me a link to the W3C page that
suggests that this is invalid.

thanks very much.

11-14-2003

Disco Octopus wrote:

> I was told that doing somehing like this is not valid CSS. I would like to
> get a second opinion please....

Looks fine to me. There is no need for the "" comments in
the CSS. It only effects some obscure beta of Netscape 3 Gold.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

11-14-2003

"Disco Octopus" <> wrote:

> I was told that doing somehing like this is not valid CSS. I would like
> to get a second opinion please....

OK, here's one: it is valid CSS. (Note that I'm giving you an opinion, not
saying that it's my opinion.)

Are there some other opinions? Well, could we say that it is both valid and
not valid? Or that it is neither? (Cf. to "this is sparkling CSS".)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

11-14-2003

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> "Disco Octopus" <> wrote:
>
>
>>I was told that doing somehing like this is not valid CSS. I would like
>>to get a second opinion please....
>
>
> OK, here's one: it is valid CSS. (Note that I'm giving you an opinion, not
> saying that it's my opinion.)
>
> Are there some other opinions? Well, could we say that it is both valid and
> not valid? Or that it is neither? (Cf. to "this is sparkling CSS".)

LOL!

Yes, there was a different opinion. Someone in alt.php claimed it's not
valid. The guy obviously didn't understand CSS.

Matthias

11-15-2003

Matthias Gutfeldt <say-no-to-> wrote:

> Someone in alt.php claimed it's not
> valid. The guy obviously didn't understand CSS.

Well, who _does_ understand CSS? We just have different holes in our
understanding. And this includes people who sort-of have defined and are
redefining CSS.

Anyway, the CSS rule
.dog td.toprow {color:red;background-color:blue;}
complies with CSS specifications (both CSS 1 and CSS 2) under any
interpretation. Some people say that this means it's "valid". Well, that's a
bit confusing, but not that it would remain exactly as "valid" if you
replaced the color name blue by the color name red (making text color and
background color the same).

It's not god CSS practice, though. The colors used (the "pure" colors) are
usually unsuitable for use on the Web, and that particular color combination
is not very good. Moreover, it would be better to set background, not just
background-color, since now any other style sheet that participates in the
cascade may freely set a background image, e.g. a nice Christmas-style
background which has strong red colors and little else.

As a practical consideration, it would be more natural to assign a class to
a <tr> element than to each <td> inside it separately. The latter approach
might escape some browser bugs, though.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

11-16-2003

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Matthias Gutfeldt <say-no-to-> wrote:
>
>> Someone in alt.php claimed it's not
>> valid. The guy obviously didn't understand CSS.
>
> Well, who _does_ understand CSS? We just have different holes in our
> understanding. And this includes people who sort-of have defined and
> are redefining CSS.

>
> Anyway, the CSS rule
> .dog td.toprow {color:red;background-color:blue;}
> complies with CSS specifications (both CSS 1 and CSS 2) under any
My confusion is now that he has said the actual selector is not valid. (IE
the first "." (dot) in the selector _._dog td.toprow {...}

11-16-2003

Disco Octopus wrote:

> My confusion is now that he has said the actual selector is not valid. (IE
> the first "." (dot) in the selector _._dog td.toprow {...}

Well, he is wrong.

".dog" is a valid shorthand for "*.dog" which will match any of the
following elements, amongst others:

<p class="dog" />
<div class="dog" />
<em class="big dog" />
<a class="hairy dog" />
<span class="hot dog with ketchup" />

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Re: correction: A question about css (was: A question about css)	richard	HTML	12	03-09-2010 08:52 PM
Is this the newsgroup for CSS help? CSS Question Included	AF	HTML	17	08-09-2006 06:57 PM
CSS question - can I make CSS Cascade sideways?	Bill_W_Stephens@yahoo.com	HTML	6	03-18-2006 06:02 PM
CSS Layout question - how to duplicate a table layout with CSS	Eric	ASP .Net	4	12-24-2004 04:54 PM
print.css and screen.css	tom watson	HTML	1	09-09-2003 02:48 PM