Isn't setting a width pointless if you have the same value min-width & max-width?

[GhostJello]

freeCodeCamp.org

Why is setting width to 100vw necessary when it doesn’t affect the table?

tbody td {
width: 100vw;
min-width: 4rem;
max-width: 4rem;
border: 1px solid black; //visual aid
}

nvm

• it does matter if width property is added
• value of width in vw doesn’t matter except when negative
• using 100% instead of 100vw makes the table uneven

[vlad-ip]

Hi there, very nice observation!

I’ve also found out that you can delete “width: 100vw;” and add instead the more logical (for me):
tbody th {
width: 70%;
}

Well, now test what happens when you also delete:
min-width: 4rem;
max-width: 4rem;

P.S. in the same course I have seen “clip” and “clip-path” used together. I found out that “clip” is obsolete and only the mighty “clip-path” is needed.
Also, for the same effect I have used this:
span[class~=“sr-only”] {
clip-path: inset(50%);
position: absolute;
}

instead of all this bunch of code presented in the course:
span[class~=“sr-only”] {
border: 0;
clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);
clip-path: inset(50%);
-webkit-clip-path: inset(50%);
height: 1px;
width: 1px;
position: absolute;
overflow: hidden;
white-space: nowrap;
padding: 0;
margin: -1px;
}

[reesooyt]

I’ve noticed >60% of the CSS styling trickery is actually totally useless repitition (in minor cases this seems to be the case but isn’t - due to compatibility issues what seems like junk has to be written), included in the courses to help us get a better understanding of properties.

Though with good intentions, this actually isn’t too helpful. It’s bad practice, and doesn’t really fulfill the aim of aiding with understanding/exposure, receiving actual uses or even nuanced rare case usages is better than spaghetti code, or in this case, almost completely illogical code.