Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: > On Mar 30, 2007, at 10:40 PM, Zoe M. Gillenwater wrote: > > >> Note that I am *not* referring to a containing block for the sake of >> positioning (for in that case, it is possible and quite easy to change >> the containing block). Rather, I'm interested in whether it is >> possible >> to give a parent div a min-width, but have its child div not look >> to the >> parent div for its width but instead look to the viewport, or body >> element. I'm pretty sure it is not possible for the child div to >> "skip" >> its parent div and use the viewport as its containing block for >> calculating its width, but like I said, I'm not really thinking >> straight >> right now. :-) >> > > In that case, the width of the child div will always depend on the > computed width of the parent, unless the child div is absolute > positioned (and the parent is _not_ relative/absolute pos). > Unless you are Internet Explorer, then you, Zoe, are probably > thinking straight. That browser does all kind of weird things, as you > know. >
Ah yes, absolute positioning. I had considered that, but it won't do in my particular case since there is something under the block that would need to be absolutely positioned. There may be some tricky way to use it anyway, but the layout effect is not worth it -- nor can I be trusted to come up with any tricky CSS effects today. Thanks for confirming my thoughts. >> Thanks for any help you can provide this sick lady. >> > > Take care of your cold. > Thanks! I'd still be in bed if I hadn't spent the first three days of this week so. Work calls! Zoe -- Zoe M. Gillenwater Design Services Manager UNC Highway Safety Research Center http://www.hsrc.unc.edu ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
