CSS Question

[thiago.eec]

Originally Posted by deback

...difficult [sic]...

Ok... is that what you chose to pick on?

English is not my native language, and I make mistakes all the time. Not a problem for me to admit that.

But, good to know that my mistake had nothing to do with the subject being discussed.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by deback

Okay, never mind. I was thinking that I had a problem with using "em" after 0 at some time in the past, but it doesn't seem like it would make any difference, since the default for all rules is zero, I believe (that is, when any rule doesn't exist for any class in the CSS file, Calibre and eReaders will assume the value is zero). Any tests that you performed were meaningless, due to the zero default for all rules. The only way to test this is to do a Check Book to see if Calibre finds an error when adding "em" after a zero.

And, by the way, using 0em for any rule has nothing to do with multiplying 0 by anything, so I have no idea why you would mention that, since it wouldn't apply in this discussion.

In my test epub, the page had alternating values of 0 and whatever I felt like setting the measurement to. This let me see what effect the values had.

As for the multiply by zero? Any unit of measurement multiplied by 0 is 0. If CSS understood furlongs, I could specify indents in furlongs but 0 furlongs is the same as 0 in any other unit of measurement from the Planck length to parsecs.

Rather oddly, I could set indents in any of the units I used and they applied which makes understanding how your statement about default values being zero was applicable to this discussion.

[deback]

Originally Posted by hobnail

But as thiago.eec pointed out they're often inheriting a value from somewhere above. Ereaders and ereader software typically have some built in css that you may not be aware of; for example, a space between paragraphs (margin-top perhaps). So just deleting the css that you think is unneeded may not work; if you want it to be zero you may need to set it to zero.

I never said anything about deleting the CSS that I think is unneeded. Sorry you misunderstand what I've been saying. Please ignore my posts from now on, since you don't seem to be comprehending them.

[deback]

Originally Posted by thiago.eec

Ok... is that what you chose to pick on?

English is not my native language, and I make mistakes all the time. Not a problem for me to admit that.

But, good to know that my mistake had nothing to do with the subject being discussed.

I found many more errors in your post, but I chose not to mention or correct them. You might want to know, though, that the proper word is difficulty.

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by deback

I never said anything about deleting the CSS that I think is unneeded.

Deleting is just an example. Whether you delete them or leave them out/unset they may or may not get their default value depending on inheritance.

[thiago.eec]

Originally Posted by deback

I found many more errors in your post, but I chose not to mention or correct them. You might want to know, though, that the proper word is difficulty.

Thanks, champ!

[deback]

Originally Posted by DNSB

In my test epub, the page had alternating values of 0 and whatever I felt like setting the measurement to. This let me see what effect the values had.

As for the multiply by zero? Any unit of measurement multiplied by 0 is 0. If CSS understood furlongs, I could specify indents in furlongs but 0 furlongs is the same as 0 in any other unit of measurement from the Planck length to parsecs.

Rather oddly, I could set indents in any of the units I used and they applied which makes understanding how your statement about default values being zero was applicable to this discussion.

Again, this discussion has nothing to do with multiplication.

So, it seems that you are now agreeing with me about how omitting the text-indent rule will result in no indentation, as long as there are no other classes that would apply. If you include it with a zero value, there will be no indentation. If you include it with a number higher than zero, then there will be an indentation. Therefore, if you omit the text-indent rule, there will be no indentation, whether you include the "em" after the zero or not. I've had enough of this conversation, which has gone on way too long.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by deback

Again, this discussion has nothing to do with multiplication.

So, it seems that you are now agreeing with me about how omitting the text-indent rule will result in no indentation, as long as there are no other classes that would apply. If you include it with a zero value, there will be no indentation. If you include it with a number higher than zero, then there will be an indentation. Therefore, if you omit the text-indent rule, there will be no indentation, whether you include the "em" after the zero or not. I've had enough of this conversation, which has gone on way too long.

No, I am not agreeing with you. Resorting to ad hominem attacks, specious logic such as stating that 0 would not work followed by em, stating that 300 and 400 were somehow equal to 0, telling us the default for all rules is 0. Trying to change your position in almost every post does not help either. You might want to try reading your message to which this is a response as a fine example of meaningless noise. How exactly are we to include or exclude the em after the 0 in a non-existent rule?

Originally Posted by deback

if you omit the text-indent rule, there will be no indentation, whether you include the "em" after the zero or not.

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead.”—Thomas Paine, The American Crisis