> I read that, and I know that issue, but I can't fathom myself where
> you'd take the extra height from if this rule wasn't there: the parent's
> parent, and if so, how much would you take, and what would the extra
> height be calculated relative to.
The easiest answer to that question is another
Ben Rogers wrote:
>>No, I think we actually agree, it's just that we're misunderstanding one
>>another. I'd better explain what I'm talking about. Roll on ASCII art!
>
>
> Sorry about the confusion. I wasn't referring to how the size of a box is
> calculated in either the W3C box model or the pr
> No, I think we actually agree, it's just that we're misunderstanding one
> another. I'd better explain what I'm talking about. Roll on ASCII art!
Sorry about the confusion. I wasn't referring to how the size of a box is
calculated in either the W3C box model or the pre-Internet Explorer 6 box
mo
Ben Rogers wrote:
>>Yup, it is, but that's not a problem with the box model--that is, the
>>way the width, height, padding areas, borders, and margins interact with
>>one another--but how the spec says heights should be calculated.
>
> Here's where we disagree. I think that sizing in the box mode
> I had a similar problem with height not working when
> specified at
> 100%. Turned out being the dtd definition. If you
> specify a dtd,
> without the height attribute, it won't work. Try simply
> excluding the
> dtd definition in your doctype def:
> Transitional//EN">
> Not:
> Transition
://www.c4.net
v.508.240.0051
f.508.240.0057
> -Original Message-
> From: Ryan Emerle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 4:34 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who
> wrote the w3c box model
&g
> Yup, it is, but that's not a problem with the box model--that is, the
> way the width, height, padding areas, borders, and margins interact with
> one another--but how the spec says heights should be calculated.
Here's where we disagree. I think that sizing in the box model is
fundamentally flaw
I had a similar problem with height not working when specified at
100%. Turned out being the dtd definition. If you specify a dtd,
without the height attribute, it won't work. Try simply excluding the
dtd definition in your doctype def:
Not:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd";>
HTH
-Ryan
Ben Rogers wrote:
>> What I meant by depending is that while such behaviour isn't specified
>> in the spec, it is available in a fair few browsers in their quirks
>> mode, but not in their standards mode.
>
> I think we're referring to two separate behaviors here. I was referring to
> sizing rela
cember 21, 2004 2:30 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who
> wrote the w3c box model
>
> > What I meant by depending is that while such behaviour isn't specified
> > in the spec, it is available in a fair few br
> What I meant by depending is that while such behaviour isn't specified
> in the spec, it is available in a fair few browsers in their quirks
> mode, but not in their standards mode.
I think we're referring to two separate behaviors here. I was referring to
sizing relative to available area as op
Ray Champagne wrote:
> Eudora 6.2 actually.
>
> I am quite over it now. A few minutes ago I was annoyed, though. Popups
> make me hyper-sensitive.
>
> What exactly would be a 'smart' client? Thunderbird? Write my own in cf? :)
Thunderbird is neat! I've a friend who swears by The Bat, thou
Nope, not at all.
I guess I did too. Water under the bridge my friend.
:)
Ray
At 02:13 PM 12/21/2004, you wrote:
>Ray Champagne wrote:
>
> > As I now know.
> >
> > For the third time, and last time: I was annoyed, didn't investigate the
> > source of the issue and wrote a response.
>
>I didn'
Ben Rogers wrote:
>>Unfortunately it's easier for them that way -- and I suspect it
>>precedes another round of large numbers of heavily IE only,
>>non-standard features for use with the new XML in Longhorne. Doesn't
>>Mozilla do something similar with XUL now tho? The big difference
>>being that
S.Isaac Dealey wrote:
>>I don't think he's "depending" on this behavior. He's
>>lamenting the fact
>>that CSS doesn't support a mechanism for sizing elements
>>relative to the
>>available space. In HTML all heights and widths are based
>>on the available
>>area, not the size of the containing bloc
Ray Champagne wrote:
> As I now know.
>
> For the third time, and last time: I was annoyed, didn't investigate the
> source of the issue and wrote a response.
I didn't see the other responses, so I'm sorry about that. I hope I
didn't come across as hostile, 'cause that wasn't my intent. So we
As I now know.
For the third time, and last time: I was annoyed, didn't investigate the
source of the issue and wrote a response.
Ray
At 01:59 PM 12/21/2004, you wrote:
>Ray Champagne wrote:
>
> > Why put scripts in your email? This pops up two blank windows when I read
> > itannoying at
Ray Champagne wrote:
> Why put scripts in your email? This pops up two blank windows when I read
> itannoying at best dude.
Scripts? There was nothing in that email except text. It was sent as
plain text too.
If your email client reacts badly to HTML in plain text, I suggest you
get a new
ED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 12:03 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who
> > wrote the w3c box model
> >
> > Why put scripts in your email? This pops up two blank windows when I read
>
r 21, 2004 12:03 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who
> wrote the w3c box model
>
> Why put scripts in your email? This pops up two blank windows when I read
> itannoying at best dude.
>
> Ray
>
>
Eudora 6.2 actually.
I am quite over it now. A few minutes ago I was annoyed, though. Popups
make me hyper-sensitive.
What exactly would be a 'smart' client? Thunderbird? Write my own in cf? :)
Ray
At 12:25 PM 12/21/2004, you wrote:
> > Why put scripts in your email? This pops up two b
> Why put scripts in your email? This pops up two blank
> windows when I read
> itannoying at best dude.
> Ray
Let me guess, you're using a web-mail client? ... Or possibly Outlook
or AOL...
That's always bothered me about web-mail clients -- the problem isn't
with the email, it's with the
Why put scripts in your email? This pops up two blank windows when I read
itannoying at best dude.
Ray
At 11:59 AM 12/21/2004, you wrote:
>Ben Rogers wrote:
>
> >>Well, your problems are manyfold.
> >>
> >>Firstly, you're depending on behaviour that was never mandated in the
> >>specs,
Ben Rogers wrote:
>>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.
>
> I don't think he's "depending" on this behavior. He's l
> Unfortunately it's easier for them that way -- and I suspect it
> precedes another round of large numbers of heavily IE only,
> non-standard features for use with the new XML in Longhorne. Doesn't
> Mozilla do something similar with XUL now tho? The big difference
> being that Mozilla isn't selli
>> 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.
> I don't think he's "depending" on this behavior. He's
> lamenting the fa
> 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.
I don't think he's "depending" on this behavior. He's lamenting the fact
that CSS do
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
> 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 hel
S.Isaac Dealey wrote:
>>S.Isaac Dealey wrote:
>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
>
>>>so after all this time, there's still no standard that
>>>allows an
>>>adequate means of specifying something as simple as
>>>height 100% ...
>>>because according to the w3c, 100% of the height
yer thinks, I
think these types of designs are fairly common.
Ben Rogers
http://www.c4.net
v.508.240.0051
f.508.240.0057
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:32 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: css - heigh
Hmm it may seem like a lot of trouble, but using Doug's technique you
can control the number of columns displayed and their order through
CSS, just by changing the body ID, one template many possible layouts,
I think it's worth the effort to look more closely at it. I use it all
the time by merging
Hmm it may seem like a lot of trouble, but using Doug's technique you
can control the number of columns displayed and their order through
CSS, just by changing the body ID, one template many possible layouts,
I think it's worth the effort to look more closely at it. I use it all
the time by merging
> S.Isaac Dealey wrote:
>> so after all this time, there's still no standard that
>> allows an
>> adequate means of specifying something as simple as
>> height 100% ...
>> because according to the w3c, 100% of the height of an
>> airplane
>> discludes its canopy and landing gear and 100% of its
>>
> so after all this time, there's still no standard that allows an
> adequate means of specifying something as simple as height 100% ...
> because according to the w3c, 100% of the height of an airplane
> discludes its canopy and landing gear and 100% of its length discludes
> its propeller and tai
S.Isaac Dealey wrote:
> so after all this time, there's still no standard that allows an
> adequate means of specifying something as simple as height 100% ...
> because according to the w3c, 100% of the height of an airplane
> discludes its canopy and landing gear and 100% of its length discludes
Yea, I'm still not happy with the standards guys tho...
thanks for suffering my rant. :)
> Think about it this way ... if it was easy, they wouldn't
> need smart
> guys like you and me - they could get any idiot manager
> to do it
> themselves with a copy of FrontPage.
> Cheers
> Mike Kear
>
Yes there is, you are able to position it absolute, giving it a
margin-left with the 1st column having a fixed width and the 2nd column
having a variable width. You need a relative positioned wrapper around
it :)
Micha Schopman
Project Manager
Modern Media, Databankweg 12 M, 3821 AL Amersfoort
T
Think about it this way ... if it was easy, they wouldn't need smart
guys like you and me - they could get any idiot manager to do it
themselves with a copy of FrontPage.
Cheers
Mike Kear
Windsor, NSW, Australia
AFP Webworks
http://afpwebworks.com
.com,.net,.org domains from AUD$20/Year
On T
39 matches
Mail list logo
