display:none
means that the tag in question will not appear on the page at all (although you can still interact with it through the dom). There will be no space allocated for it between the other tags.
visibility:hidden
means that unlike display:none
, the tag is not visible, but space is allocated for it on the page. The tag is rendered, it just isn't seen on the page.
For example:
test | <span style="[style-tag-value]">Appropriate style in this tag</span> | test
Replacing [style-tag-value]
with display:none
results in:
test | | test
Replacing [style-tag-value]
with visibility:hidden
results in:
test | | test
Basics
For controlling "cellpadding" in CSS, you can simply use padding
on table cells. E.g. for 10px of "cellpadding":
td {
padding: 10px;
}
For "cellspacing", you can apply the border-spacing
CSS property to your table. E.g. for 10px of "cellspacing":
table {
border-spacing: 10px;
border-collapse: separate;
}
This property will even allow separate horizontal and vertical spacing, something you couldn't do with old-school "cellspacing".
Issues in IE ≤ 7
This will work in almost all popular browsers except for Internet Explorer up through Internet Explorer 7, where you're almost out of luck. I say "almost" because these browsers still support the border-collapse
property, which merges the borders of adjoining table cells. If you're trying to eliminate cellspacing (that is, cellspacing="0"
) then border-collapse:collapse
should have the same effect: no space between table cells. This support is buggy, though, as it does not override an existing cellspacing
HTML attribute on the table element.
In short: for non-Internet Explorer 5-7 browsers, border-spacing
handles you. For Internet Explorer, if your situation is just right (you want 0 cellspacing and your table doesn't have it defined already), you can use border-collapse:collapse
.
table {
border-spacing: 0;
border-collapse: collapse;
}
Note: For a great overview of CSS properties that one can apply to tables and for which browsers, see this fantastic Quirksmode page.
Best Answer
I work on normalize.css.
The main differences are:
Normalize.css preserves useful defaults rather than "unstyling" everything. For example, elements like
sup
orsub
"just work" after including normalize.css (and are actually made more robust) whereas they are visually indistinguishable from normal text after including reset.css. So, normalize.css does not impose a visual starting point (homogeny) upon you. This may not be to everyone's taste. The best thing to do is experiment with both and see which gels with your preferences.Normalize.css corrects some common bugs that are out of scope for reset.css. It has a wider scope than reset.css, and also provides bug fixes for common problems like: display settings for HTML5 elements, the lack of
font
inheritance by form elements, correctingfont-size
rendering forpre
, SVG overflow in IE9, and thebutton
styling bug in iOS.Normalize.css doesn't clutter your dev tools. A common irritation when using reset.css is the large inheritance chain that is displayed in browser CSS debugging tools. This is not such an issue with normalize.css because of the targeted stylings.
Normalize.css is more modular. The project is broken down into relatively independent sections, making it easy for you to potentially remove sections (like the form normalizations) if you know they will never be needed by your website.
Normalize.css has better documentation. The normalize.css code is documented inline as well as more comprehensively in the GitHub Wiki. This means you can find out what each line of code is doing, why it was included, what the differences are between browsers, and more easily run your own tests. The project aims to help educate people on how browsers render elements by default, and make it easier for them to be involved in submitting improvements.
I've written in greater detail about this in an article about normalize.css