Step 80 Footer comments don't suppose to have code specification function?

Link to the challenge:

Can anyone explain to me why adding the comment section as a footer cause the CSS class (a) to only work on the footer in HTML when the comment doesn’t suppose to have any specifying function?

Say if we have another anchor element link on top before footer, why are we coding it in such a general way?
Makes no sense.

I’m not sure what ‘adding the comment section as a footer’ means. Can you show your code?


body {

  background-image: url(;

  font-family: sans-serif;

  padding: 20px;


h1 {

  font-size: 40px;


h2 {

  font-size: 30px;


.established {

  font-style: italic;


h1, h2, p {

  text-align: center;


.menu {

  width: 80%;

  background-color: burlywood;

  margin-left: auto;

  margin-right: auto;

  padding: 20px;

  max-width: 500px;


hr {

  height: 2px;

  background-color: brown;

  border-color: brown;


.bottom-line {

  margin-top: 25px;


h1, h2 {

  font-family: Impact, serif;


.item p {

  display: inline-block;

  margin-top: 5px;

  margin-bottom: 5px;

  font-size: 18px;


.flavor, .dessert {

  text-align: left;

  width: 75%;

.price {

  text-align: right;

  width: 25%


/* FOOTER */

footer {

  font-size: 14px;


If we code (a) link below the footer comment, it will still affect all (a) in HTML.
So why not tell us how to code CSS specifically for the (a) link in the footer?
Cause if we just code CSS selector as:

a {
color: black

It will turn all (a) in HTML black not just the footer

Because that’s not what the challenge is asking for? You could specifically only target anchors in the footer only, but that’s more complicated than what you were told to do.

I’ve edited your post for readability. When you enter a code block into a forum post, please precede it with a separate line of three backticks and follow it with a separate line of three backticks to make it easier to read.

You can also use the “preformatted text” tool in the editor (</>) to add backticks around text.

See this post to find the backtick on your keyboard.
Note: Backticks (`) are not single quotes (’).

If this is the case, then why place anchor type selector below the /* Footer */ comment. The script is not specific to the footer, it strikes me that would be confusing, and certainly not best practice.

The order of the CSS rules doesn’t change how it works, except that a later rule for the name selector supersedes the first.

Are you responding to me? Because that doesn’t have anything to do with what I said. The tutorial teaches us to make a /Footer/ comment for the purposes of organizing our CSS. Then it has us make rules underneath that commentary that are not specific to the to the footer section. The person who wrote the tutorial knows this CSS will only target html presented in the footer, but it is not specific to the footer. The CSS for this project is being treated as though it exists only for the purpose of a single page. It’s just all bad. Script not specific to the footer should not be placed under that comment. That is very obviously not correct. Yes it’s true the machine doesn’t know the difference, but there’s a hell lot more to CSS that making it work for a single page static page. Either the script should specifically target elements nested within the Footer or the script should be placed above the Footer comment. There’s no reason to write it this way, and anyone keeping in mind good principles will attempt to target the footer element.

I’m not wild about the comment being added there, but I disagree that there is ‘no reason to write it this way’. This is a beginner tutorial. More complex targeting is covered later.

But that’s exactly what I’ve said. There’s no reason to write it this way. Readability shouldn’t be dismissed because it’s a beginners tutorial.

Its not exactly clear to me what specifically you’re complaining about? The existence of the comment? I agree, its weird.

But above you talk about ‘anyone keeping in mind good principles will attempt to target the footer element’, which is where I disagree. In the introductory tutorial on CSS, I think its fine to do a simpler targeting of all anchor elements instead of writing those rules to only target child elements of the footer. More complex targeting can come later.

Man come on. You’re a broken record. You know exactly what I’m saying you’re simply dismissing it as unimportant. It is organized poorly. I don’t know what it being a beginners tutorial has to do with it being wrong. I’m not being pedantic. If it’s confusing to the person following the tutorial, it’s a bad way to organize the script, and dismissing poor readability in a world of opensource and big tech is just silly. You keep saying “it’s weird, but…” When it should be “it’s wrong”

@Nolegdai If you have a suggestion on how to improve the project, definitely consider opening a GitHub issue for the repo with your suggestions on how to improve the project steps. There is always room for improvements to the curriculum. That is why many PRs are created by volunteers to make changes to it.

I’m honestly don’t “know exactly what you’re saying”. I’m not sure if you are objecting to the tutorial not doing complex targeting or if you are only objecting to the comment. If it is the first, I disagree. If it is only the second, I agree.

Thanks Randell, that’s exactly what I needed.