Size of zero pixels in CSS with or without 'px' suffix? [duplicate]

可紊 提交于 2019-11-27 21:54:23
thirtydot

They are identical.

Use width: 0, because it is shorter and more readable.

Especially when you have, for example:

padding: 0px 0px 9px 8px

vs

padding: 0 0 9px 8px

See the specs:

The format of a length value (denoted by <length> in this specification) is a <number> (with or without a decimal point) immediately followed by a unit identifier (e.g., px, em, etc.). After a zero length, the unit identifier is optional.


The minor problem with '0' is that if you change it to some non-zero value, you might forget to add the 'px'. And when making a value '0', you may forget to remove the 'px'

This does not happen once you get into the habit of writing 0 without the unit identifier.

I always use 0 (without units), unless I want to explicitly set the units, simply because it's shorter. The important thing is to be consistent.

I think 0 is 0 no matter what you have after it. 0% of something would be the same as 0 pixels of something. I think...at least that is how I think about things, and multiplication seems to agree with me.

If you are using several type of CSS units (%, em, inch…) in your stylesheet you'd better keep the intended one (in your case px).

On a side note, remember that the keyword none doesn't necessarily redirect to 0 (even if visually it has the same result).

易学教程内所有资源均来自网络或用户发布的内容,如有违反法律规定的内容欢迎反馈
该文章没有解决你所遇到的问题?点击提问,说说你的问题,让更多的人一起探讨吧!