Stuart was saying that one doc type will render padding, margin, or 0px differently than another.

This is not true, and any decent web tech should know that. Nothing you provided proved that one doc type would display margin, padding, or 0px differently. Go ahead and email Jeff and ask him.

:2 cents:

Welcome to the web as the W3C sees it - where the more the number of convoluted and gratuitous standards you can make, the "better" everything is.

Or to put it another way, if the W3C built motorways, the number of lanes it had, speed you could go and distance to be kept between cars would vary depending on the car you were in, colour of eyes you saw the road through and whether or not your car manufacturer had the greatest market dominance, and so just did everything differently, just for the shit of it.

Actually, I said "no matter what make or model, will try their very best to make sure that 0px really means 0px."

Which is true.

0px means the top left corner of the browser, but the different browsers interpret the "top left corner" differently.

What?!

For starters 0px means zero pixels. 0px has nothing to do with corners, it's a definition of measurement.

Secondly, if different browsers render 0px differently. And if "top left" is different in different browsers. I'd love to see some information on it.

I guarantee you can't find me one shred of information stating how 0px will be rendered as say 0px in firefox but .5 pixels in internet explorer, or 1.3456 pixels in opera.

I'd also love to see some information that states "top left", is not defined as the top left corner of an element in some browser.

Like whoa, what you're saying is happening goes against every thing that is known about the browser rendering and css.

no offense - but this is wrong...

true, a pixel itself isnt changed or 'measured' differently - but - browers will use them differently or see the formulas and output them differently...

After all this, you seriously think that I don't know that 0px is a measurement... and are trying to be so anal that my reference to 0px as the top left corner is anything but... you know what? I'm done talking to you.
There's obviously no point in it since you are nitpicking this crap just for the sake of arguing at this point.

You go about doing things your way, you're the best. All hail you, king of css.

Interesting way to look at it, but it's not the w3c's fault really. It's actually the browser company's fault during the browser wars in the 90's. They just made up their own tags that were independent of any standards. The w3c made recommendations on what tags should do what, and how they would work, but none of the browser makers listened. It's not like the w3c is out to fuck anyone over, or make things hard on people. They wanted the complete opposite actually.

Strict is not strict. Why can't I do <iframe/> or <script src="..."/> without the browser crapping out on me?

Another good one. Don't do display: none in the css if you want to change it with JS later on. Do it inline on the actual element. You can't change it since it's not on the DOM if you declare it none in the CSS.

Another tip to keep the thread rolling

display property...

Both very useful. display block has helped me fix 1px differences between IE and FF... such a pain.

You can do script with strict, but you can't do iframe. That's not a standards valid markup...

And your point about using display: none; inline is a good tip. And display: none; is better than visibility: hidden; hidden seemed to leave the space that the hidden element took up on the page, but display none, removes that space and continues the normal flow of the document.

Actually it's supposed to be 0 not 0px. Only include px if it's non-zero. It will work fine but it's not compliant.

using 0 is compliant... either one is compliant.

It's compliant.

And again, when I ask you to simply reference your statements you back out. Figures. Pages back I even went ahead and created pages to back my statements. You never provided links or references to back what you were saying. Yet again, you do not provide any proof.

You had the right idea starting this thread. It had good intent. However you're providing misleading and wrong information. It's counter productive to what you tried to accomplish.

Amazing thread stuart. I'm going to bookmark it.

bumpity for these great tread on css thanks stuartd for starting it and Merry Christmas

Man, this is very usefull, thanks for this!
Bump!

Good post Stuart! :thumbsup