Hey David! There’s no additional benefit when the values are specified in pixels — just one example in the set to show that different length units are accepted. If the design calls for a fixed height between 400px and 600px, then that would be a good case for using them. But you’ll likely see relative or percentage units for their flexibility in responsive designs (among other things).

Oh, and thanks for the heads up on that typo in the code comment!

in your first code example you have:

.wrapper {
height: 600px;
min-height: 400px; /* Will be AT LEAST 20em tall : overrides height */
}

What is the benefit for height and min-height specified in px? And why does the comment behind min-height says something about em?

I just wanted to check if you have you ever experienced an issue with using “vh” as your min-height value. I had an attribute set to “min-height: 100vh” and it was ignoring the min-height attribute, but if I use a pixel value it works.

I ended up using display: flex and it seemed to have worked, do you have any experience with this?

Luke

I have been developing sites for many years and consider you a reputable source when developing, well done.

Just a quick note about this, not sure how “compatible” this technique is as height is what sets the boxes’ height where as min-height is the secondary property.

To my knowledge if min-height is greater than height than the container would “overflow” beyond its contents and may cause some inconsistency across the browsers.

Am I missing something or over thinking?

Looking forward to your reply,

Mr Alexander