You must log in or register to comment.
Came to say the same. I’ve never taken it so literally.
Sadly
position: top;is not valid css. It should say
position: absolute; bottom: 0px;Still funny though.
The
pxis making me eyes itch.Ah, the author fixed it. Good job.
Thank God, that would’ve eaten me alive
You design people and your pedantry.
> /dev/nullfor you.Jk, you’re fine.
If you trim that bush, it’ll seem larger
Why is
.tree’s position relative?Needed for the
.leaves’ absolute positioning to be relative to the tree, and not relative to the universe.Damn, I thought you were going to take me out to dinner first
It’s so the
position: absolutefor.leavesworks relative to.tree. The implication is that.leavesis a descendant of.tree.position: absolutelooks for the nearest ancestor with a set position in order to determine its own positioning context. Otherwise the absolute positioning would basically be relative to the viewport. If theposition: relativewas missing, the leaves would be against the bottom edge of the image.edit: I mean
.leaves, not.branch
Okay, nun weiß ich wie man Scharmbehaarung programmiert…
Das ist nicht _iel.
This is mad_css!!
THIS IS SPARTAAA
deleted by creator
Und *Scham
Scharm ^^
