Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • Apply the same principle to a different situation, usernames. If I say "BoltClock" I've identified a user that I'm talking about by name, you can no longer become any more specific to which user. If I were to say "BoltClock's commenters" I'm talking about a more specific subset of users than ALL USERS, but not necessarily just one, making it less specific in terms of set notation. The whole system uses flawed set logic. Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 17:42
  • Thanks for the workarounds, but being the really stubborn person that I am, I have to insist that their system for identifying specificity is wrong, and refuse to change. I usually just do #inner{rule:rule !important;} Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 18:00
  • 1
    I've always wondered about this myself too, actually, and found it equally counter-intuitive at first. But I guess everyone's different - I've been adapting peacefully to the way CSS does it. Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 18:03
  • Questioning authority is never a bad thing, somebody has to think about web standards right? If it doesn't make sense, there should be a discussion. I figured maybe it did, so I asked. Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 18:26
  • BoltClock, i prefer the following now: #inner[id] Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 19:25