On 25/4/05 8:09 PM, "Ingo Chao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem here is the first rule: you forgot the ";", so a parser
> could read this:
>
> #right {
> width: 45%;
> border: 1px solid black;
> }
D'oh!!
>
> now you might wonder why this does not fit side-by-side in FF, OP, but
> in IE.
>
> IE/Win has a buggy float implementation. And an element with a dimension
> like "#right" is layoutet as a rectangular object which indeed sits at
> the right side of the preceding float #left.
>
> compare IE and FF/Op/Saf:
>
> #right {
> width: 45%;
> background: maroon;
> }
> #left {
> float: left;
> width: 25%; /* for demonstration */
> background: navy;
> }
>
> <div id="left">Content for id "left" goes here</div>
> <div id="right">Lorem ipsum .... put in a long text here so we can see
> what happens when the line wraps.</div>
>
> IE6: the maroon block starts next to the navy float with a a width of
> 45% (overall width: 25% + 45%)
>
> IE5.5: the maroon block starts next to the float, with a width of (45%
> of the space beneath the float 75% = 33,75%, overall 25%+33,75% =
> smaller than IE6)
>
> Browsers that follow the specs show: the maroon block and the float
> display at the same top left of the containing element. The maroon block
> is overlapped by the float, and the line boxes "float" literally. The
> overall width of this construct is 45% (smallest).
>
> Another aspect why I'd vote for floats is that recent browsers do have
> some problems calculating percentage widths of a. p. blocks with respect
> to their containing block (and not to the parent).
>
Thanks for your advice!
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
