S.Isaac Dealey wrote: >>S.Isaac Dealey wrote: >> >>>>S.Isaac Dealey wrote: >>> >>>Except that with the w3c box model there are still a >>>small number of very simple things which are ... >>>I hate to say it, but _FLAT_IMPOSSIBLE_ to accomplish. >>>Whereas this is not the case with the MS box model. >> >>An example would be helpful. > > You must have missed the first message in this thread... > > Here's the archive url: > > http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/messages.cfm/threadid:37168/foru > mid:4
Ah, either AVG or Thunderbird must've decided to clip that. >>>What matters is that a viewable page can be formatted >>>in a consistent manner which allows us full control >>>over the display -- which we don't have with the >>>w3c model. > > >>Full control, shmull control: there'll always be a >>browser that screws up in some way. As soon as the >>page leaves the server, there goes our control over >>how it's displayed. > > Except I'm not talking about every browser. I'm not talking about > Konqueror not rendering correctly -- I'm talking about not having > control even when using a browser which is said to render the box > model correctly. > >>>My efforts to support the w3c model are based on >>>the idea that it's better to have a _BROKEN_ >>>standard than no standard. >> >>That's fair, but I don't see *how* exactly it's >>broken? A pain at times, yes, but calling it broken >>seems a little much. > > Two iframes side by side which together fill the screen horizontally > having a fixed amount of space between the iframe and the window edge > and a fixed amount of space between each other and which also fill the > remainder of the height of the window after a header and footer div > are placed above and below them, and which don't degenerated into one > above and one below when the browser is shrunk horizontally. > > If you can accomplish that in Firefox or IE6 with the appropriate > doctype, I'd be mighty impressed, and I'd amend/retract what I've > said. Well, your problems are manyfold. Firstly, you're depending on behaviour that was never mandated in the specs, that being that a height of 100% means 100% of the available window area or available area. The specs, for better or for worse, don't recogise this usage because it's meaningless in the broader context of positioning, which is that positioning is done on the basis of the total rendering area of the page, not just the current viewport. You'll get this behaviour *without* the doctype because that's how it was treated by browsers in the past. This is quirks mode, and there be funkiness. If IE wasn't so braindead, it'd support fixed positioning. In this case, you could position your elements wherever you liked relative to the four sides of the screen. This is possible in Firefox, but not in IE, because MS have slowly let IE die. Your problem isn't with the spec--and definitely not with the box model, which doesn't even come up here--but with a lack of implementation of the spec. However, depending on what you're trying to write, frames are probably a better way of doing this anyway. All you seem to be doing is trying to emulate them anyway, and iframes in this context are a bit icky anyway. I'll throw the fixed positioning code your way if you like. -- Keith Gaughan, Developer Digital Crew Ltd., Pembroke House, Pembroke Street, Cork, Ireland http://digital-crew.com/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.0 - Release Date: 17/12/2004 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188254 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
