You must log in or register to comment.
Okay, nun weiß ich wie man Scharmbehaarung programmiert…
Und *Scham
Scharm ^^
Das ist nicht _iel.
This is mad_css!!
THIS IS SPARTAAA
Sadly
position: top;is not valid css. It should say
position: absolute; bottom: 0px;Still funny though.
You design people and your pedantry.
> /dev/nullfor you.Jk, you’re fine.
Ah, the author fixed it. Good job.
Thank God, that would’ve eaten me alive
Why is
.tree’s position relative?Needed for the
.leaves’ absolute positioning to be relative to the tree, and not relative to the universe.Damn, I thought you were going to take me out to dinner first
It’s so the
position: absolutefor.branchworks relative to.tree. The implication is that.branchis a child of.tree.position: absolutelooks for the nearest ancestor with a set position in order to determine its own positioning context. Otherwise the absolute positioning would basically be relative to the viewport. If theposition:absolutewas missing, the leaves would be against the bottom edge of the image.
If you trim that bush, it’ll seem larger
Came to say the same. I’ve never taken it so literally.
Saw this post about “CSS Gardening,” and I’m reminded of debugging my first responsive website. Did anyone else spend hours wrestling with margins and padding, only to realize it was a typo in the media query? I did! Now I meticulously check my syntax.
