From aa2e20cb127be5c2d245cf44c4b579e7e17e503d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:14:10 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] response --- ...both__39____39___for___96__.page__42____39____63__.mdwn | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/bugs/__96____96__clear:_both__39____39___for___96__.page__42____39____63__.mdwn b/doc/bugs/__96____96__clear:_both__39____39___for___96__.page__42____39____63__.mdwn index 1f3c9bbb6..e389ce3ed 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/__96____96__clear:_both__39____39___for___96__.page__42____39____63__.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/__96____96__clear:_both__39____39___for___96__.page__42____39____63__.mdwn @@ -8,3 +8,10 @@ for `.pagedate, .pagelicense, .pagecopyright`. I can override this in `local.css`, but what was the original reason for adding this `clear: both`? + +> Without investigating in detail, I think it was probably because any +> of the items can be enabled or disabled. So any of them might be the +> first item after the horizontal rule, and any might be the last item +> before the modification date. So all of them have to clear both above and +> below. I'm sure there are better ways for the CSS to handle that. +> --[[Joey]] -- 2.45.0