Keep it your way. It wasn't clear that it was a specificity tie to me
On Jun 17, 2013 11:02 PM, "huchengtw-moz" <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In apps/sms/style/custom_dialog.css:
>
> > @@ -106,6 +102,10 @@ body[role="application"] [role="dialog"]:not([data-type="edit"]):not([data-type=
> >    width: 100%;
> >  }
> >
> > +body[role="application"] [role="dialog"]:not([data-type="edit"]) menu[data-items="2"]:not([type="toolbar"]) button {
>
> @gnarf <https://github.com/gnarf>
>
> The reason to move it is for CSS overriding. Both of css rules this one
> and previous one match the conformation dialog. If we want to use
> data-items=2 to have 2 button with 50% size, the following rule
> body[role="application"]
> [role="dialog"]:not([data-type="edit"]):not([data-type="action"])
> menu:not([type="toolbar"]) button
> will override the
> body[role="application"] [role="dialog"]:not([data-type="edit"])
> menu[data-items="2"]:not([type="toolbar"]) button
> . So we will have 2 buttons with 100% width.
>
> This is because they have the same specificity count,
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/cascade.html#specificity.
> They override each other sequentially.
>
> I know it has another alternative to use, like !important or add
> :not([data-type="action"]) to the moved one. To preserve the original
> specificity, I choose move it.
>
> Basically, I don't have any preference about this and more knowledge to
> say which one is better. I will love to do the change with your suggestion.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/pull/10204/files#r4740370>
> .
>