I was reading the first few and thinking "No... No... Hrmmm... this seems really misinformed" before it dawned on me around point 5 that the whole thing is satire.<p>It eases you into the realisation nice and slowly. I'm guessing given the penchant for people to comment based purely on titles, some won't even get that far.
On number 3, that behavior is exactly what I would expect. Not sure what other logical behavior you would propose...<p>The other options don't make sense:<p>"A) Aligned horizontally with the first two, but after both of them?"<p>Floats are taken out of the normal flow so they will be pulled as far to the side as possible until they reach another floated element or the edge of the BFC.<p>"B) On the row after the first two, on the far left side?"
"C) On the row after the first two, on the far right side?"<p>They are floated elements in the same BFC, if they fit on the same line, they will. Unless you clear them. Pretty simple stuff.
Can't say I agree with this article - I don't really run into CSS gotchas too often anymore.<p>This just reads like a massive complaint-fest TBH.
I enjoy working in CSS (or maybe I'm just oblivous of a better way/paradigmn of styling, if so please enlighten me :)) so this was a great read. Thank you!
Using CSS to design software user interfaces is like using Microsoft Word and a parallel port modem to compose symphonies. I'm sure there's some awe-inspiring way to print from Word to the modem so that it produces sounds that vaguely remind you of a French horn and viola -- but it's not clear why anyone should want to use these tools to create works of such complexity, if only they had an alternative.
The one about vertical-align seems wrong. I use it all the time when aligning text next to images and that has nothing to do with tables afaik.<p><a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/vertical-align" rel="nofollow">https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/vertical-al...</a>