2 ms·

Yes. All these are "supposed" to work the way they are and they are given good reasons, but it still doesn't negate the facts that the same CSS style has diffe

by ww520 3y ago

Yes. All these are "supposed" to work the way they are and they are given good reasons, but it still doesn't negate the facts that the same CSS style has different effects on different tags. The <span> tag is a good example. As a user of CSS, when I apply a width to a span, I want its width set. I don't care it spans items. If I want span to have no width, I would just leave it alone. The fact that setting the width spells my intention clearly to restrict its width. In regarding to the selective application of colors and font-size on <a>text</a>, both the colors and font-size are styles that affect the text of the link. Why does one go through and the other doesn't? Don't you want consistent appearance of the link both in colors and font-size, in the name of affordance?

Terretta 3y ago
Semantics and context matter. Width is a lovely word for things that have width, and meaningless if applied to things that don't. Consider “Set your emphasis width to 12 points.” None of that is applicable even though there are 3 CSS keywords in there and you can make sense of the sentence. > Don't you want consistent appearance of the link both in colors and font-size, in the name of affordance? Speaking for me, no. All words in the sentence, both inside and outside the anchor, should be consistent font, but the anchor has both state and behavior that can include color, underline, etc., to set what's inside the anchor to be inconsistent from the surrounding text, for attention and information. Generally, font size is not one of those things that would vary (Mac dock icon mouseover as a counter-example). There's a decent chance much of this makes more sense if you were making sites before these capabilities were developed and were along for the progression. It likely does seem like a chaotic mess when picking it up for the first time in present state, so I think it's a fair reaction.

by ww520 3y ago

Terretta 3y ago

Semantics and context matter. Width is a lovely word for things that have width, and meaningless if applied to things that don't. Consider “Set your emphasis width to 12 points.” None of that is applicable even though there are 3 CSS keywords in there and you can make sense of the sentence. > Don't you want consistent appearance of the link both in colors and font-size, in the name of affordance? Speaking for me, no. All words in the sentence, both inside and outside the anchor, should be consistent font, but the anchor has both state and behavior that can include color, underline, etc., to set what's inside the anchor to be inconsistent from the surrounding text, for attention and information. Generally, font size is not one of those things that would vary (Mac dock icon mouseover as a counter-example). There's a decent chance much of this makes more sense if you were making sites before these capabilities were developed and were along for the progression. It likely does seem like a chaotic mess when picking it up for the first time in present state, so I think it's a fair reaction.