Hmmm too funny - my archive pages actually look better if I leave "container" in there!



Oh but wait - some of the default stylesheets DO use the id "container" - see Gettysburg and Rusty....so the usage must be intentional.

Hmmm, I wonder if not defining a container class in some of the stylesheets was intentional, i.e., "we don't want this stylesheet to apply styles to this class, but we do want *this* one to apply them."

In other words, could the absence of any container styles be part of the overall design of that particular stylesheet?

Is it possible to specify an "empty" class in a stylesheet and still have it validate properly?

Now my curiosity is up.

A bunch of the templates show



instead of



which is what the standard site style requires for the Movable Type Default Templates

It's an inconsistency that should be resolved, then.

It's intentional, yes--container is an extra class that some of the default styles need, but some don't.