Css core: 88%. I was lucky I guess.
Css practice: 92%, two pretty silly mistakes.
Html Core: 84%, aborted in a hurry.
Not that ambiguous as I was afraid of after all.
Css core: 88%. I was lucky I guess.
Css practice: 92%, two pretty silly mistakes.
Html Core: 84%, aborted in a hurry.
Not that ambiguous as I was afraid of after all.
2nd attempt 100% (no practice questions looked at)
Congratulations! (Show-off. )
Whoa, thanks for the screenshot, @PaulOB! That’s definitely not how it’s supposed to look. Fixing it now.
Not using unitless line-heights means you are signing on to specify a line-height
whenever you specify a font-size
. It’s doable, but hardly a sensible default position, I’d say.
I like this idea, lesley! Will change this the next time I edit the test.
Would you need to change anything if that line height were set in ems or % though? Whatever you changed the font size to would be automatically reflected in the line height, wouldn’t it? (Granted, though, that it’s a different story for descendent elements, as the Eric Meyer link above shows, so I still don’t like the idea of setting units on line height.)
Anyhow, here’s one of the discussions by said member about line height: Layout Disaster! (CSS) - #36 by system, in case anyone’s interested in what we are referring to!
Hmm I suppose you could do something like:
* { line-height: 1.2em; }
This would cause every element in your document to calculate its own line height based on its own font size. But you can get the same effect with just
html { line-height: 1.2; }
and that only requires the browser to match one element, rather than every single element on the page.
To be clear, this:
html { line-height: 1.2em; }
will not calculate auto-adjust the line height for each element’s font-size
. It calculates a fixed line height (1.2 times the html
element’s font-size
) and every element in the document inherits that fixed height, regardless of its own font-size
.
Really liked the quiz but made a poor result above and had to wait one week to get a second shot at it.
The trickyness in some questions made me I feel like I knew the proper answer but had a hard time decide what was really the question. Guess I was luckier this time.
Well done Erik
Passed them all, but some with shameful results imho, I guess I have some catching up to do.
Nice test though, thanks!
80% first try. Loved the test although some of the questions could have been made a bit clearer.
74% on the actual test, but got 88% on the practice.
For a harder question, I like this one that surprised me when I learnt it:
Which of these properties on its own can create a new stacking context?
position
z-index
opacity
margin
The correct answer is opacity. Margin is the red herring but position and z-index need to both be specified in order to create a stacking context.
Technically isn’t position all you need? Stacking context is then created based off the HTML source order.
The stacking order would be defined from the html order. A stacking context is a different thing to that. Taken from http://philipwalton.com/articles/what-no-one-told-you-about-z-index/:
Groups of elements with a common parent that move forward or backward together in the stacking order make up what is known as a stacking context.
Ah - my stacking context was the definition of stacking order. Thanks! Learned something .
Very nice, i had 77% thats not bad from a person who only played with css for 1 year, and never learned in school about the names: pseudo-class and element:)
Very nice i learn so much on this site:)
// Patrick clemmensen
I got 84% on first try. On that question about overlapping you should specify negativ margin
, not just margin
. I know there is no negative margin property but, It’s common knowledge that negative margins
are with minus -
sign.
This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.