RE: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

> 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

css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

> I > remembered somebody'd already solved this particular problem before: > > http://www.redmelon.net/tstme/3cols2/ Keith: That example conveniently sums up why I'm abandoning CSS positioning after a couple years of work in that area. CSS-P is so

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

RE: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

> 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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

> 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

RE: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

://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

RE: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

> 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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

RE: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

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 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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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'

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

RE: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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 >

RE: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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 > >

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

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 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

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 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,

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

RE: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

> 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

RE: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

>> 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

RE: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

> 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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c 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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

RE: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

t 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who > wrote the w3c box model > > 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 po

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

> 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 >>

RE: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

> 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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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 >

RE: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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

css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who wrote the w3c box model

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 tail-fins...