I think the reasoning is to maintain compatability with relative units.
So then with em and %, zero = none, as a referent. And for fixed unit
measurements, like px, it really makes no difference (0 = 0), which is
why I believe in the standard it specifies units as /optional/ after
zero. I differ to those with more experience on that point.
Mark
Stephen Stagg wrote:
Without wanting to unleash too many ponies, I would be interested to
know why using 0(px | em | %) is so much of a standards blunder. I'm
sure there some obvious answer but for the life of me, I can't think
of one :).
If this has already been done to death on the list, please forgive me
and email me privately in reply.
I shall of course not use units when specifying 0 as a length in
future CSS work.
Thanks in Advance
Stephen.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 16:29, White Ash wrote:
Thanks Georg for the fix ~ I must remember that for future designs!
That works beautifully.
And Russ ~ so that more and more web standards faeries may live, I
have converted all 0px's in my code to 0.
I do believe....
White Ash
FIX:
Re: [WSG] Gaps At The Top
Gunlaug Sørtun
Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:32:25 -0800
Adding something like:
div#container,div#banner {padding-top: 1px;}
#navlist {margin-top: 10px;}
h1 {margin-top: -10px; max-width: 400px;}
...shouldn't be too far off.
Those padding-top prevent collapsing margins, and the margins are then
defined to position correctly across browser-land.
Adjust those margins to taste, and check for unwanted
overlapping/breaking when font-resizing is applied.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
