Thierry Koblentz wrote:
>> http://www.mcmonagle.biz/nav2.htm
>
> I found out that (atleast in this case) a better fix than using an
> explicite width is to include a "display:inline-block" declaration in
> the rule (IE Win).
> Unfortunately, "display:inline-block" is not a sure fix for IE5 Mac,
> a
> somebody who had problems with his
> navigation bar in IE *6*.
> I believe he didn't implement the fix yet:
> http://www.mcmonagle.biz/nav2.htm
I found out that (atleast in this case) a better fix than using an explicite
width is to include a "display:inline-block" declaration in the rule (IE
Wi
Alex Robinson wrote:
> There is however no reason that the explicit width one should not be
> auto
> ie, width: auto is perfectly acceptable
>
> Except of course for IE Mac 5 treating that the same as 100%. [0]
> Though there is a solution of sorts for IE Mac 5 - use display:
> inline-block
>ht
You may be hepped up on goof-balls, but your memory seems intact --
people >often recommend that we assign an explicit width to a block
that's floated in >many circumstances. However, doing so isn't (as
far as I know) mandated by the >W3C spec and therefore isn't a
requirement but rather a rec
At 12:47 PM 9/1/2005, Mark Lundquist wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Sep 1, 2005, at 12:23 PM, Paul Novitski wrote:
I was mentioning floating as an alternative method of shrinking blocks
I've always had the impression that floated blocks are supposed to have an
explicit width... can you explain? Or am
Steve Clay wrote:
> From what I understand, IE5/Mac just expands "widthless"/width:auto;
> floats to 100% (like "auto"). Is this correct?
>
> If so, I'd think this would be an acceptable degradation in this
> situation. Most browsers get shrink to fit, IE/mac gets full width.
> No big deal.
I
Adam Kuehn wrote:
> I qualified my remarks to limit them to "CSS 2" browsers. I would
> not put NN4 in that group.
Me neither. But my remark about using "float" without "width" was not
limited to CSS2 browsers...
When I said it was not "safe", I meant regarding browsers compatibility in
general,
Hi Paul,
On Sep 1, 2005, at 12:23 PM, Paul Novitski wrote:
I was mentioning floating as an alternative method of shrinking blocks
I've always had the impression that floated blocks are supposed to have
an explicit width... can you explain? Or am I just hepped-up on goof
balls? :-)
—ml—
Thursday, September 1, 2005, 2:45:59 PM, Adam Kuehn wrote:
> Thierry Koblentz wrote:
>>I'm not sure if this is a "safe" solution; I wouldn't use float without an
>>explicite width...
> It is safe for all CSS 2 browsers with the sole exception of IE5/Mac.
> That browser, and only that browser, req
CJ Larson wrote:
Wouldn't you be able to have { display: inline; clear: both; } instead
of floating them?
It is certainly possible to inline them, but floating can carry some
important advantages, particularly if you are floating links. In
that case, floating makes the items block display, w
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
... and using "width:auto" for NN4 only. NN4 "takes" width:auto, but not no
width at all
I qualified my remarks to limit them to "CSS 2" browsers. I would
not put NN4 in that group. However, if version 4 browser support is
needed for your particular project, them the
At 12:05 PM 9/1/2005, CJ Larson wrote:
Wouldn't you be able to have { display: inline; clear: both; } instead
of floating them?
CJ,
If you use {display: inline} to shrink the headline to its minimum width,
you wouldn't need to use {clear: both;} -- unless some other element on the
page bega
Adam Kuehn wrote:
> either. If shrink-wrapping is the preferred behavior, I would
> suggest leaving out the width for most browsers, and feeding the
> explicit-width approximations to IE5/Mac only. (For filters to use
> for this purpose, see the Wiki.)
... and using "width:auto" for NN4 only. NN
CJ Larson wrote:
> Wouldn't you be able to have { display: inline; clear: both; } instead
> of floating them?
If you don't float them, then there is nothing to clear...
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
I'm not sure if this is a "safe" solution; I wouldn't use float without an
explicite width...
It is safe for all CSS 2 browsers with the sole exception of IE5/Mac.
That browser, and only that browser, requires the explicit width.
The strict width requirement has been r
Wouldn't you be able to have { display: inline; clear: both; } instead
of floating them?
-Original Message-
> The header elements are known as "block level" elements. You can turn
them into "inline" elements to with the following style rule:
>
> h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {
> display: inl
> Another way (besides making them inline) is to float them right or
> left. Floated block elements shrink to the size of their contents.
> Then, of course, you need to cancel the float with the next element
> on the page so that it doesn't align next to the headline:
> h1
> {
>
Thanks for all the replies. It appears, the way to do it in my
siuation is to probably use JavaScript.
--
Mr. Kim Siever
http://www.hotpepper.ca/
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
At 10:11 AM 9/1/2005, Mr. Kim Siever wrote:
By default, a header element seems to take up the entire width of a
page (or containing element). Does anyone know if there is a way in
CSS to reduce the width to be only that of the actual width of the
text?
Kim,
Another way (besides making them in
The actual width of the element depends on the width of its containing block,
so you can use all sorts of mechanisms to control a header's width, but without
setting it to "inline" I can think of no way to make it the same size as the
text (short of a combination of setting the width in ems and
On 01/09/05, Simon Jessey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The header elements are known as "block level" elements. You can turn them
> into "inline" elements to with the following style rule:
>
> h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {
> display: inline;
> }
Is that the only way? I had thought of this.
I am
The header elements are known as "block level" elements. You can turn them into
"inline" elements to with the following style rule:
h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {
display: inline;
}
Simon Jessey
Business Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Business Site: http:
Hi all,
By default, a header element seems to take up the entire width of a
page (or containing element). Does anyone know if there is a way in
CSS to reduce the width to be only that of the actual width of the
text?
Thanks.
--
Mr. Kim Siever
http://www.hotpepper.ca/
23 matches
Mail list logo
