a-z css editor solution

[rjwse@aol.com]

I noticed that when alphabetizing the css file with the A-Z icon there is an accompanying warning message that sometimes an unwanted result can happen. So far, so good, but I had another small problem in that commands that I wanted to associate with each other now became separated by the alphabet. I think I have found a solution and wanted to offer it here for evaluation. If I type in the same "dummy" word followed by a comma in front of all items I would like to group, the whole group is now in the same place in the alphabet.
tablestuff, table{}
tablestuff, tr {}
tablestuff, td {}
Is there any problem with doing this? The dummy word "tablestuff" references nothing at all and exists only as a tool to group items for a table.
Best regards, Pop

[gbm]

Use a period instead of a comma:

tablestuff.table{}
tablestuff.tr {}
tablestuff.td {}

A better way would be:

table{}
table.tr {}
table.td {}

If you had multiple table with different css then you could simply use:

table1{}
table1.tr {}
table1.td {}

for the next table and so on.
bernie

Originally Posted by rjwse@aol.com

I noticed that when alphabetizing the css file with the A-Z icon there is an accompanying warning message that sometimes an unwanted result can happen. So far, so good, but I had another small problem in that commands that I wanted to associate with each other now became separated by the alphabet. I think I have found a solution and wanted to offer it here for evaluation. If I type in the same "dummy" word followed by a comma in front of all items I would like to group, the whole group is now in the same place in the alphabet.
tablestuff, table{}
tablestuff, tr {}
tablestuff, td {}
Is there any problem with doing this? The dummy word "tablestuff" references nothing at all and exists only as a tool to group items for a table.
Best regards, Pop

[rjwse@aol.com]

Thank you for that information about the dot instead of comma. I was unaware you could do this. I had been under the impression that if you put a dot in front of something that it would automatically turn into a class and that in the xhtml segment you would have to refer to it as class="whatever". I have also been toying with the creation of multiple stylesheets. Best regards, Pop

[Phssthpok]

Originally Posted by rjwse@aol.com

Thank you for that information about the dot instead of comma. I was unaware you could do this. I had been under the impression that if you put a dot in front of something that it would automatically turn into a class and that in the xhtml segment you would have to refer to it as class="whatever". I have also been toying with the creation of multiple stylesheets. Best regards, Pop

You're right, it does make it a class. The comma should work just fine.

[Nicolas F]

Originally Posted by rjwse@aol.com

Thank you for that information about the dot instead of comma. I was unaware you could do this. I had been under the impression that if you put a dot in front of something that it would automatically turn into a class and that in the xhtml segment you would have to refer to it as class="whatever". I have also been toying with the creation of multiple stylesheets. Best regards, Pop

I don't think you can use a dot. As you said if you put a dot you target a class instead of the element. So you would need to add the corresponding class (so your table element will need to be <table class="table")

If all you want to do is order alphabetically your css using commas as you were doing is fine. (you're targeting a tablestuff element that does not exist but this is not a problem)

But the best thing is not to reorder the css
Nobody will see the css and there is no real benefit to reordering it.