valid means passes the validater. it won't
works means .... works ... id'ing the html is weird, but should work in most
browsers
$("div.foo.bar") might look good but I don't think it works.
$("div.foo").filter(".bar") would be my choice to do an and.
$("div.bar",".foo") might get you there too.
On 5/4/07, Glen Lipka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm curious why you're going up so far, though. What are you doing
> > > that you couldn't just put a class on the body instead?
> >
> >
>
> I figured out a different way to solve my original problem, however, here
> was the circumstance. I am working on a large web 2.0 app. Its using Jack
> Slocum's EXT framework as well as YUI and a bunch of third party packages.
> One section is a Landing Page editor. It launches in a totally seperate
> window as the main app. One feature is that part of the page has a
> "template" which is base HTML that the customers provide. So one CSS file
> that I work with is used for both windows. So I cant use HTML alone because
> it's not specific enough.
>
> So the problem arose when the customer had styling on the "body". Their
> CSS was coming first (for other reasons) so it was getting overwritten by
> Jack Slocums class which was on the body. We need his body stuff for the
> main app, but not the editor window. I was trying to figure out how to
> differentiate BODY tags between the app and the Editor windows. I thought,
> maybe I could put a class on HTM. I wish there was a way in CSS to say
> div.foo *AND* div.bar {color:red}
>
> The comma acts like an OR statement. Why isn't there an AND statement?
>
> Anyway, I ended up using an EXT line in the JS to remove the offending
> rule.
>
> It's a little complicated, but I hope this helps clarify.
>
> One question. Two answers here: It is Valid and it is NOT valid. Which
> is the truth? It seems unorthadox to put an ID on an HTML tag, but I don't
> see why it should be avoided if needed. (in rare circumstances)
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Glen
>
>
>
> >
>
--
Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ - יעקב ʝǡǩȩ ᎫᎪᏦᎬ
