ansaurus

Question

Answer 1

A:

The code below does what it says (at least in Firefox). it colors the input red

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"&gt;
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<style type="text/css">
.mainbody #container #header #toprightsearch .searchbox {
    background-color:red;
}
</style>
</head>

<body class="mainbody">

<div id="container">
 <div id="header">
  <div id="toprightsearch">
   <input type="text" class="searchbox" />
  </div>
 </div>

</div>
</body>
</html>

I think you should see if there went anything wrong in spelling the ID's and classes.

jao 2009-06-07 16:45:29

thanks, but I'm not having a problem making it work. I just noticed that it works sometimes if I omit parent ids and classes. So I am looking for the correct way to list rules.

2009-06-07 16:49:52

Whoever downvoted this has issues. This was a very good answer to the question it sounded like razass was asking.

Chuck 2009-06-07 17:28:37

The question was why you could omit some of the combinators and still get the same result--not a "this is busted" question but a "why does this still work?" question. It was probably down voted because it appears that jao didn't read the question carefully (I didn't down vote this however)

rpflo 2009-06-07 23:33:31

Answer 2

+1 A:

If you include more parents, it does increase selector specificity. You shouldn't have cross-browser problems omitting parents.

There is no correct number of parents to list; it depends on what you require for your markup. As you're seeing, selector1 selector2 means a selector2 at any level inside a selector1, and you can tune that for whatever behavior you need.

In your example, you should list .mainbody #container #header #toprightsearch .searchbox if what you mean is for the style to only apply to .searchboxes that are inside that entire hierarchy. If contrariwise you want .searchboxes that exist other under conditions to get the same style, you should be less restrictive in the hierarchy. It's only about what you're trying to accomplish.

Re comment: IDs produce more specificity, so omitting them reduces your rule's specificity more.

chaos 2009-06-07 16:49:06

Ok - and is there any difference in omitting IDs vs Classes?

2009-06-07 16:50:54

Answer 3

+1 A:

From the W3 Selectors Documentation:

Descendant selectors express such a relationship in a pattern. A descendant selector is made up of two or more selectors separated by white space. A descendant selector of the form "A B" matches when an element B is an arbitrary descendant of some ancestor element A.

So in short, no you do not have to include all of the parent elements, and should not cause any cross-browser problems. However, with this selector:

.mainbody .searchbox {}

The styles defined will apply to any element with a class of searchbox whether it descends directly or indirectly from an element with class mainbody.

With your proposed selector, however:

.mainbody #container #header #toprightsearch .searchbox {}

The styles defined are more specific, and so only elements that descend from an element with class mainbody, then the elements with IDs of #container, #header, #toprightsearch in that order and that have a class name searchbox will have the defined styles applied.

Perspx 2009-06-07 16:57:55

Answer 4

+3 A:

.searchbox {}

Styles anything with .searchbox

.mainbody .searchbox{}

Styles any .searchbox that descends from any .mainbody, direct child, grandchild, quadruple great grandchild, doesn't matter.

#toprightsearch > .searchbox {}

Styles only .searchboxes that are direct children of #toprightsearch

#container * .searchbox {}

Styles .searchbox's that are grandchild or later of #container.

Here's a good document on the topic: w3C selectors

rpflo 2009-06-07 17:00:18

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

Css Style Nesting - Proper Form?

related questions