What does the '>' symbol in css mean?

Question

Easy points here for anyone who knows. I am looking for a detailed answer on what it (>) means and how it should be used. Thanks.

are you looking for http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1628485/what-does-in-css-mean?rq=1 — N30, Jul 03 '12 at 14:31

score 4 · Answer 1 · edited Dec 15 '16 at 21:35

4

The < is not valid CSS, you should not use it anywhere in your CSS.

edited Dec 15 '16 at 21:35

empiric

answered Jul 03 '12 at 14:36

Huangism

score 4 · Accepted Answer · edited Jul 28 '12 at 16:59

4

There is no valid symbol as < in CSS. If you use it, you will invalidate your css.

However, you may want to use > - the child selector.

CSS4 will introduce a subject selector. At the moment it is marked with $.

so

$#parent a:hover{
   /* styles */
}

so these rules will not apply to the a in hoverstate, but it's parent with the parent-ID. CSS4 spec

edited Jul 28 '12 at 16:59

BoltClock

answered Jul 03 '12 at 14:38

Christoph

I thank you for your correction, the detailed description, and the nod to the future. – bkbarton Jul 03 '12 at 14:52

score 1 · Answer 3 · edited Jul 03 '12 at 15:19

1

You may be thinking of the > (great than symbol) selector.

This selector is known as the child combinator selector.

This means it will only select direct children of the parent. For example:

ul > li

So for example, if you wanted to style a nested unordered list as such:

<ul>
<li></li>
    <li>
       <ul>
       </ul>
    </li>
</ul>

You would have to style it as such:

ul > li > ul

But this is only in the case of using >, child combinator selector.

edited Jul 03 '12 at 15:19

Christoph

answered Jul 03 '12 at 14:36

Aaron Brewer

`ul ul` would also catch that particular case… we could add a `ul` inside the `li` to make it more relevant, though I'm not actually sure what putting a `ul` directly inside a `ul` would do. – Matchu Jul 03 '12 at 14:39
@Matchu: I never place a ul inside a li, if I am going to nest a ul, I make sure I put it within the ul, not the li. It have the exact same results, it just makes your HTML look cleaner and more readable. – Aaron Brewer Jul 03 '12 at 14:41
Sorry, but I don't see non-validating HTML as "cleaner" than validating HTML. – Mr Lister Jul 03 '12 at 14:43
@MrLister: Regardless of the validity of the HTML in my "example", my answer to the question above is correct and I do not see why you would be concentrating on the validity of nesting an unordered list instead of answering the users question. – Aaron Brewer Jul 03 '12 at 14:46
@AaronBrewer how you write it, it's creates invalid markup. Very dangerous since you can't rely on consistent rendering. – Christoph Jul 03 '12 at 14:47
@Christoph: There, I have validity in my unordered list now. – Aaron Brewer Jul 03 '12 at 14:48
now your selector does not match^^ – Christoph Jul 03 '12 at 14:49
@Christoph: Now it does. – Aaron Brewer Jul 03 '12 at 14:49
yep. offtopic: You dont like spelling names right? ;-D – Christoph Jul 03 '12 at 14:50

3 Answers3