By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,625 Members | 2,235 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,625 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Ranking importance

P: n/a
The rank of importance of CSS used to be:

Author !important rules
User !important rules
Author rules
User Rules
UA Settings

Now the rank is this:

User !important rules
Author !important rules
Author rules
User Rules
UA Settings

Therefore - does an author's !important rule actually make a difference
now? Is the !important now pretty much effectless in an author stylesheet?
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
2 Replies


P: n/a
Neal <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote:
The rank of importance of CSS used to be:

Author !important rules
User !important rules
Author rules
User Rules
UA Settings
Yes that was in CSS1. It was changed to the below to give user's the
final say over things that they decided were important to them.
Now the rank is this:

User !important rules
Author !important rules
Author rules
User Rules
UA Settings

Therefore - does an author's !important rule actually make a difference
now? Is the !important now pretty much effectless in an author stylesheet?


It can be used by the author to over ride styles applied elsewhere in
the stylesheet. For instance if multiple author stylesheets are being
used (say one generic corporate stylesheet and one project specific
stylesheet) then styles may need to be over ridden for particular
pages and using !important removes the need to add extra class or id
attributes to the HTML.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 19:36:17 +0000, Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
It can be used by the author to over ride styles applied elsewhere in
the stylesheet.


Hmm. Hadn't considered that. Thanks.
Jul 20 '05 #3

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.