> Hello Ken,
>
> Thank you. I've not met {zoom: 1,0;} before, but I'll be giving it a
> try.
> I did wonder if it was a 'has-layout' problem, but don't know enough
> to make the
> suggestion. I thought, however, that the 'overflow:hidden' was
> meant to take
> care of that. But perhaps not.
>
Ah, no no, overflow: hidden is a fancy way to clear floats without
actually clearing them.
Floats take elements out of the document flow. So parent elements
don't know how tall to be for example. Before Overflow: hidden; was
around, clearing them was the way to go, because suddenly, an element
is in document flow but is still flowing around floats that aren't, so
our parent containers were happy, because they could see -something-
to know how tall to be =p Clearing causes -all- kinds of problems
though, which I'm sure you'll run into.
But thats why overflow: hidden got latched onto so hard, all of a
sudden, parent elements, with one simple declaration and less hacks
and no extra elements know how tall to be and what is going on with
their children elements. It's killer for floats, but not much past
that (unless you dig the iframe scene =p ).
Zoom: 1.0 and height: 1%; both can do some nice things for the fubar
scene of IE6. I most often use zoom now though. Oh and a good tip off
that something is awry with has-layout: the borders that David Laakso
was tossing onto the elements, if borders ever fix your problem
randomly, the issue is usually has-layout.
Good luck to ya! IE-6 takes every trick in the book at the end of the
day typically =p
Sincerely,
Ken Hanson | http://www.markupninjas.com
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
