Donna Casey wrote:
> Alex Foley wrote:
>
>> I'd sure like a confirmation from someone that overflow: auto is the way
>> to go... I've been clearfix-ing up until about 12:03 pm today.
>>
>
> Zoe's excellent (free) article explains much of this:
>
> http://communitymx.com/content/article.cfm
On Jul 18, 2006, at 8:17 AM, Robert O'Rourke wrote:
>> So, the overflow-property is a useful solution for containing
>> floats in
>> some cases, but not in others.
>>
>> regards
>> Georg
>>
>
> Good to know,
>
> Does a floated element within a container that has overflow : hidden ;
> appli
> So, the overflow-property is a useful solution for containing floats in
> some cases, but not in others.
>
> regards
> Georg
>
Good to know,
Does a floated element within a container that has overflow : hidden ;
applied respect the padding of the container? In particular the bottom
L. Robinson wrote:
> If overflow: auto or hidden is used merely to clear an element, what
> prevents the occasional chopping off of needed data (hidden) or the
> addition of nasty little scroll bars everywhere (auto) where one
> might not want them?
>
> K. What is it I don't understand? :)
Pr
On 2006-07-16, Yehuda Katz wrote:
> Essentially, I created a set of CSS Formatting guidelines designed to
> get designers to create readable CSS that other designers could
> quickly get up to speed on.
>
> The "spec" is available in PDF form at
> http://www.yehudakatz.com/CSSf-1-5-1-Spec.pdf.
R
K. What is it I don't understand? :)
lr
You understand it correctly, actually.
--
Marc Luzietti
Flagship Project
Bayview Financial, L.P.
(305) 341-5624
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/m
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
> Yehuda Katz wrote:
>> Since overflow: hidden or overflow: auto does
>> the trick, the whole issue of clearing floats becomes essentially a
>> non-issue, and saves extra markup.
> I use such design-methods quite
> often, and the overflow-property doesn't cut it across brow
>
> i personally would rather not have scrollbars appear or things
> disappear on elements with width or height. I prefer using option #2
> in the wiki (http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ClearingSpace),
> which doesn't add additional markup, either
>
I'm with CJ on this one, though I don't ca
Yehuda Katz wrote:
> Sure it is. Adding clearing elements, and the ensuing additional CSS
> (or extra clearing markup), makes code less readable for, in most
> cases, no good reason. Since overflow: hidden or overflow: auto does
> the trick, the whole issue of clearing floats becomes essentially
On 7/17/06, Yehuda Katz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure it is. Adding clearing elements, and the ensuing additional CSS (or
> extra clearing markup), makes code less readable for, in most cases, no good
> reason. Since overflow: hidden or overflow: auto does the trick, the whole
> issue of cleari
Alex Foley wrote:
> I'd sure like a confirmation from someone that overflow: auto is the way
> to go... I've been clearfix-ing up until about 12:03 pm today.
>
>
>
Here we go:
http://dev.l-c-n.com/IEW/containing-float-overflow.php
It's not as consistent as clear-fixing but in general using o
Alex Foley wrote:
> I'd sure like a confirmation from someone that overflow: auto is the way
> to go... I've been clearfix-ing up until about 12:03 pm today.
Zoe's excellent (free) article explains much of this:
http://communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?cid=6BC9D
A great read!
thanks, Zoe!
I'd sure like a confirmation from someone that overflow: auto is the way
to go... I've been clearfix-ing up until about 12:03 pm today.
Alex Foley
Robert O'Rourke wrote:
> Tom Livingston wrote:
>
>> Hold on.
>>
>> Adding overflow:auto; on a container will clear any and all floats
>> inside sa
Tom Livingston wrote:
>> Sure it is. Adding clearing elements, and the ensuing additional CSS (or
>> extra clearing markup), makes code less readable for, in most cases, no good
>> reason. Since overflow: hidden or overflow: auto does the trick, the whole
>> issue of clearing floats becomes essenti
> Sure it is. Adding clearing elements, and the ensuing additional CSS (or
> extra clearing markup), makes code less readable for, in most cases, no good
> reason. Since overflow: hidden or overflow: auto does the trick, the whole
> issue of clearing floats becomes essentially a non-issue, and save
Sure it is. Adding clearing elements, and the ensuing additional CSS (or
extra clearing markup), makes code less readable for, in most cases, no good
reason. Since overflow: hidden or overflow: auto does the trick, the whole
issue of clearing floats becomes essentially a non-issue, and saves extra
Yehuda Katz wrote:
> Essentially, I created a set of CSS Formatting guidelines designed to get
> designers to create readable CSS that other designers could quickly get up
> to speed on.
>
> The "spec" is available in PDF form at
> http://www.yehudakatz.com/CSSf-1-5-1-Spec.pdf.
>
"The purpose of
> I went in to DW8 and under the Preferences you can set the
> CODE FORMAT
> properties.
Hi Cory
This is pretty far off-topic for this list and would probably be better
discussed in a Dreamweaver forum (see
http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/index.cfm?forumid=12).
Having said th
Jim Nannery wrote:
>>Cory wrote:
>>I'm sorry, I think you guys are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am
>>not talking about how the layout looks in the browser, I am talking
>>about when you right click and view the source code, THAT is what is all
>>messed up. In particular the CSS. In DW8, th
Cory
You wrote
> I'm sorry, I think you guys are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am
> not talking about how the layout looks in the browser, I am talking
> about when you right click and view the source code, THAT is what is all
> messed up. In particular the CSS. In DW8, the CSS is all nice
david wrote:
>No, the problem is that DW (and it's WYSI-not-really-what-you-get
>competitors) is lying to you. The only way to really test and make sure
>your pages are working right is checking it in a browser. Remember,
>people don't browse websites using Dreamweaver! ;-)
>
>
>
I'm sorry,
Cory Perry wrote:
> Hey everyone, I having a problem with my CSS formatting when viewed in a
> browser compared to how I have it layed out in Dreamweaver 8. In DW8, it
> is layed out perfectly and I can read everything just fine. When you
> view the CSS code in the browser however, it is all ove
It's probably not the browser. Dreamweaver often times doesn't show
css layouts correctly.
If you have a link to your site that would probably help.
On Jan 20, 2006, at 1:33 PM, Cory Perry wrote:
> Hey everyone, I having a problem with my CSS formatting when viewed
> in a
> browser compared
23 matches
Mail list logo
