CSS liquid layout - can't achieve correct sizing

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Guest, Dec 17, 2007.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Hi,

    I've learnt the best way is to use an example so look at the following:

    http://62.149.36.16/~generic9/plain-exmaple.htm

    and then look at the following:
    http://62.149.36.16/~generic9/plain-exmaple2.htm

    Now as you can see the main text has gone past the bottom of the page.

    what I want is a situation where if I wrie more text it just goes down. Now
    at first I thoguht it was as simple as chaning the class
    "MainCentreSection"

    So that the height is auto or 100%.

    But it did not work in Firefox (It seemed to work OK in IE). In firefox it
    seemed to shrink the white section down so its height was very small. See
    example:

    http://62.149.36.16/~generic9/plain-exmaple3.htm
    (view in firefox and in IE to compare).


    Although IE displays the above closer to how I expected it, it's still not
    perfect although you cannot see it in the example because I do not have a
    background image for the right hand section, but bascially I also will want
    my background image on the right to repeat down to the bottom but it does
    not when I put make the change that I made in example3. For now this is not
    as essential as sorting the previous query may sort this out.

    I hope this question makes sense. I've been learning a lot about CSS and
    this ng has helped. Still a way to go but getting better.

    Thanks
     
    Guest, Dec 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    Kevin Scholl Guest

    On Dec 17, 3:33 pm, <news.freedom2surf.net> wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I've learnt the best way is to use an example so look at the following:
    >
    > http://62.149.36.16/~generic9/plain-exmaple.htm
    >
    > and then look at the following:http://62.149.36.16/~generic9/plain-exmaple2.htm
    >
    > Now as you can see the main text has gone past the bottom of the page.
    >
    > what I want is a situation where if I wrie more text it just goes down. Now
    > at first I thoguht it was as simple as chaning the class
    > "MainCentreSection"
    >
    > So that the height is auto or 100%.
    >
    > But it did not work in Firefox (It seemed to work OK in IE). In firefox it
    > seemed to shrink the white section down so its height was very small. See
    > example:
    >
    > http://62.149.36.16/~generic9/plain-exmaple3.htm
    > (view in firefox and in IE to compare).
    >
    > Although IE displays the above closer to how I expected it, it's still not
    > perfect although you cannot see it in the example because I do not have a
    > background image for the right hand section, but bascially I also will want
    > my background image on the right to repeat down to the bottom but it does
    > not when I put make the change that I made in example3. For now this is not
    > as essential as sorting the previous query may sort this out.
    >
    > I hope this question makes sense. I've been learning a lot about CSS and
    > this ng has helped. Still a way to go but getting better.
    >
    > Thanks


    What you're looking for sounds like a "sticky footer". See:

    http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2005/08/29/

    for a possible solution. FWIW, you might reference this question in a
    CSS newsgroup as well, as I know it's been addressed many times.
     
    Kevin Scholl, Dec 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    Ben C Guest

    On 2007-12-17, <news.freedom2surf.net> <> wrote:
    [...]
    > what I want is a situation where if I wrie more text it just goes down. Now
    > at first I thoguht it was as simple as chaning the class
    > "MainCentreSection"
    >
    > So that the height is auto or 100%.


    You want auto. Rule of thumb: you almost never want to set height to
    anything except auto.

    > But it did not work in Firefox (It seemed to work OK in IE). In firefox it
    > seemed to shrink the white section down so its height was very small. See
    > example:
    >
    > http://62.149.36.16/~generic9/plain-exmaple3.htm
    > (view in firefox and in IE to compare).


    This is because most of your content is in floats. Boxes don't
    automatically grow in height to fit floats in-- instead the float
    overflows and text in the following block flows around it.

    Whatever IE's doing it's wrong.

    To get the float contained in Firefox, you can add overflow: hidden to
    the styles for .mainContent, which will cause descendent floats to be
    contained after all for some subtle and interesting reasons to which IE
    is probably completely oblivious.

    Alternatively you may be able to put another empty <div></div> after the
    floats set to "clear: both".
     
    Ben C, Dec 17, 2007
    #3
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    "Ben C" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > To get the float contained in Firefox, you can add overflow: hidden to
    > the styles for .mainContent, which will cause descendent floats to be
    > contained after all for some subtle and interesting reasons to which IE
    > is probably completely oblivious.


    Would you be kind enough to explain this statement in a little more details.
    Overflow is no to me but got a little bit lost half way through this
    partiular paragraph.

    Thanks
     
    Guest, Dec 18, 2007
    #4
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    "Ben C" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > To get the float contained in Firefox, you can add overflow: hidden to
    > the styles for .mainContent, which will cause descendent floats to be
    > contained after all for some subtle and interesting reasons to which IE
    > is probably completely oblivious.



    Hmm I kind have this working without really understanding it. Undersanding
    growing but not there fully yet.
    However, alhtouhg this works, getting the div that is to the right of the
    left section I can now get to expand downwards to match the text content, I
    can't make the right hand section fill down to match the same size as the
    left section (I hope that makes sense).

    So for example, lets say I put a repeating vertical image in the right hand
    section div, using the suggested technique above stops the right hand
    section repeating the image down to the bottom where the left hand section
    goes down to.

    Hopefully what I'm saying makes sense.

    Thanks for input
     
    Guest, Dec 18, 2007
    #5
  6. Guest

    Ben C Guest

    On 2007-12-18, <news.freedom2surf.net> <> wrote:
    >
    > "Ben C" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> To get the float contained in Firefox, you can add overflow: hidden to
    >> the styles for .mainContent, which will cause descendent floats to be
    >> contained after all for some subtle and interesting reasons to which IE
    >> is probably completely oblivious.

    >
    > Would you be kind enough to explain this statement in a little more details.
    > Overflow is no to me but got a little bit lost half way through this
    > partiular paragraph.


    It is a bit of a weird side-effect of overflow: hidden.

    See

    http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets/msg/22eadc1c6622d5c5

    and

    http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.html/msg/eeac004d67abb772

    dorayme has a webpage about containment of descendent floats with some
    examples but I can't find the url.
     
    Ben C, Dec 18, 2007
    #6
  7. Guest

    Ben C Guest

    On 2007-12-18, <news.freedom2surf.net> <> wrote:
    >
    > "Ben C" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> To get the float contained in Firefox, you can add overflow: hidden to
    >> the styles for .mainContent, which will cause descendent floats to be
    >> contained after all for some subtle and interesting reasons to which IE
    >> is probably completely oblivious.

    >
    >
    > Hmm I kind have this working without really understanding it. Undersanding
    > growing but not there fully yet.
    > However, alhtouhg this works, getting the div that is to the right of the
    > left section I can now get to expand downwards to match the text content, I
    > can't make the right hand section fill down to match the same size as the
    > left section (I hope that makes sense).


    Yes. You can't really do that automatically with floats.

    > So for example, lets say I put a repeating vertical image in the right hand
    > section div, using the suggested technique above stops the right hand
    > section repeating the image down to the bottom where the left hand section
    > goes down to.
    >
    > Hopefully what I'm saying makes sense.


    The height of a float depends only on the stuff inside that float (and
    whatever you may have set for height, min-height, or max-height). You
    can't take two floats that are side-by-side and make them both the be
    the height that the taller one's content requires. That's what tables
    are for. Tables are the only elements that "link" adjacent column
    heights together in that way.

    But, there are some clever tricks. If you're setting a width on that
    right hand float explicitly, you can just give it a transparent
    background (the default), and then put its background image on its
    container instead, because the container is the right height.

    In other words, make one big background image for the container that
    extends underneath the floats as well, and is visible through the whole
    lot. Of course you can make an image that looks different at the two
    edges that are underneath the floats, so that the finished effect looks
    like the floats have their own distinct background images, and that
    everything is all the same height.
     
    Ben C, Dec 18, 2007
    #7
  8. Guest

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ben C <> wrote:

    > On 2007-12-18, <news.freedom2surf.net> <> wrote:
    > >
    > > "Ben C" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> To get the float contained in Firefox, you can add overflow: hidden to
    > >> the styles for .mainContent, which will cause descendent floats to be
    > >> contained after all for some subtle and interesting reasons to which IE
    > >> is probably completely oblivious.

    > >
    > > Would you be kind enough to explain this statement in a little more
    > > details.
    > > Overflow is no to me but got a little bit lost half way through this
    > > partiular paragraph.

    >
    > It is a bit of a weird side-effect of overflow: hidden.
    >
    > See
    >
    > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets/ms
    > g/22eadc1c6622d5c5
    >
    > and
    >
    > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.html/msg/eeac004d67abb772
    >
    > dorayme has a webpage about containment of descendent floats with some
    > examples but I can't find the url.


    It is (in its unfinishedness) at:

    http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page1.html

    but I am yet to get to practical things like ways to make the
    parent grow height to cover the floated children. The div clear
    route is well known, the overflow is very interesting and I have
    yet to look closely at it.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 18, 2007
    #8
  9. Guest

    rf Guest

    "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > Ben C <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2007-12-18, <news.freedom2surf.net> <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > "Ben C" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:...
    >> >> To get the float contained in Firefox, you can add overflow: hidden to
    >> >> the styles for .mainContent, which will cause descendent floats to be
    >> >> contained after all for some subtle and interesting reasons to which
    >> >> IE
    >> >> is probably completely oblivious.
    >> >
    >> > Would you be kind enough to explain this statement in a little more
    >> > details.
    >> > Overflow is no to me but got a little bit lost half way through this
    >> > partiular paragraph.

    >>
    >> It is a bit of a weird side-effect of overflow: hidden.
    >>
    >> See
    >>
    >> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets/ms
    >> g/22eadc1c6622d5c5
    >>
    >> and
    >>
    >> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.html/msg/eeac004d67abb772
    >>
    >> dorayme has a webpage about containment of descendent floats with some
    >> examples but I can't find the url.

    >
    > It is (in its unfinishedness) at:
    >
    > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page1.html
    >
    > but I am yet to get to practical things like ways to make the
    > parent grow height to cover the floated children. The div clear
    > route is well known, the overflow is very interesting and I have
    > yet to look closely at it.


    dorayme, both you and Ben C are *almost* there.

    The thing to look for is block formatting context:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#block-formatting

    Yes, there is bugger all there but the clue to follow is "elements with
    'overflow' other than 'visible'". That is where the overflow: hidden comes
    into it. It establishes a new block formatting context. I usually however
    use overflow: scroll so as not to hide content, just in case our viewer does
    odd things with her canvas dimensions.

    A block level element that establishes a new block formatting context
    "contains" floats and clears. This has two effects:

    The block expands to contain any decendent element that is floated. It
    "contains" the floats.

    Clears do not propogate outside the block. The block "contains" the clears.

    HTH

    --
    Richard.
     
    rf, Dec 18, 2007
    #9
  10. Guest

    Ben C Guest

    On 2007-12-18, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Ben C <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2007-12-18, <news.freedom2surf.net> <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > "Ben C" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:...
    >> >> To get the float contained in Firefox, you can add overflow: hidden to
    >> >> the styles for .mainContent, which will cause descendent floats to be
    >> >> contained after all for some subtle and interesting reasons to which IE
    >> >> is probably completely oblivious.
    >> >
    >> > Would you be kind enough to explain this statement in a little more
    >> > details.
    >> > Overflow is no to me but got a little bit lost half way through this
    >> > partiular paragraph.

    >>
    >> It is a bit of a weird side-effect of overflow: hidden.
    >>
    >> See
    >>
    >> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets/ms
    >> g/22eadc1c6622d5c5
    >>
    >> and
    >>
    >> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.html/msg/eeac004d67abb772
    >>
    >> dorayme has a webpage about containment of descendent floats with some
    >> examples but I can't find the url.

    >
    > It is (in its unfinishedness) at:
    >
    > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page1.html


    That's more about float placing. I meant the other one. You had a box
    with some floats in it and some parables about parents ignoring their
    children.
     
    Ben C, Dec 18, 2007
    #10
  11. Guest

    Ben C Guest

    On 2007-12-18, rf <> wrote:
    >
    > "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In article <>,

    [...]
    >>> See
    >>>
    >>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets/ms
    >>> g/22eadc1c6622d5c5

    [...]
    > dorayme, both you and Ben C are *almost* there.


    > The thing to look for is block formatting context:
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#block-formatting


    Ahem. I believe I explained all this in the link above, pointing out
    that the places to look are 9.4.1 and 10.6.7.

    "*almost* there" indeed.

    > Yes, there is bugger all there but the clue to follow is "elements with
    > 'overflow' other than 'visible'". That is where the overflow: hidden comes
    > into it. It establishes a new block formatting context. I usually however
    > use overflow: scroll so as not to hide content, just in case our viewer does
    > odd things with her canvas dimensions.
    >
    > A block level element that establishes a new block formatting context
    > "contains" floats and clears. This has two effects:
    >
    > The block expands to contain any decendent element that is floated. It
    > "contains" the floats.
    >
    > Clears do not propogate outside the block. The block "contains" the clears.


    Other effects too. Most significant is that other floats that start
    outside the BFC will not intrude into the BFC. This means the BFC itself
    may become narrower to squeeze between floats.

    In other words:

    <div style="float: left; height: 200px; width: 100px; background-color:
    red">
    <div>
    <div style="overflow: hidden; border: 5px solid blue">
    Hello
    </div>

    Look at where the left border of the second div is, then remove
    overflow: hidden.
     
    Ben C, Dec 18, 2007
    #11
  12. Guest

    rf Guest

    rf, Dec 18, 2007
    #12
  13. Guest

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ben C <> wrote:

    > >> dorayme has a webpage about containment of descendent floats with some
    > >> examples but I can't find the url.

    > >
    > > It is (in its unfinishedness) at:
    > >
    > > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page1.html

    >
    > That's more about float placing. I meant the other one. You had a box
    > with some floats in it and some parables about parents ignoring their
    > children.


    Ah... you mean:

    http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouseOfAlice/normalHouse.html

    I found it still on the server. Well, that one was just an
    earlier version of the longer one. You have to read the longer
    one on a bit to see that it *is* concerned about how to think
    about parents, floated children and height. In the earlier one I
    was talking about parental retaliation, and playing silly buggers
    with a set of floats that were designed to look like a book.

    In the later longer treatise <g>, I was more serious and
    substituted the image of the parent being simply blind to floated
    children. I tried to solve a few problems in all of this by
    having floated children themselves being aware of not only their
    siblings (both floated and non-floated) but also being aware of
    their parents position. Placement, height and how to think of all
    these things were sort of all parts of one story.

    Probably slightly wincing reading for experts, but the earlier
    version was even more so. In the earlier version there was the
    image of the parent rejecting floated children, in the later
    there is the image of the parent being blind to them (ie. your
    "ignoring" is still an important image. It is just that the
    ignoring in the later one is helpless rather than conscious <g>)

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 18, 2007
    #13
  14. Guest

    dorayme Guest

    In article <_PO9j.25093$>,
    "rf" <> wrote:

    > "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > > It is (in its unfinishedness) at:
    > >
    > > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page1.html

    >
    > Are you going to offer this up for critique when it is "finished"?


    No. I mean yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Hell, I dunno. Never
    occurred to me, this all started when an Eastern Suburbs
    maternity hospital contacted me, they had heard that there was a
    complete idiot in town who took a bit of interest in these
    matters. This idiot had been spotted walking around dangling in
    front of passing children helium balloons that had things like
    "{float: left; margin:0.5em; width: 7em;}" on them. The police
    were called and it got a bit of news.

    Anyway, the hospital, a private one - you know the wealth and
    progressiveness of Eastern Suburbs mums - were keen to get their
    kids a head start in the IT world. So the hospital asked me to
    design a course for the babies...

    Mate, seriously, I am going to have it bound and printed, it will
    be a weighty tome and I will invite you to a pub, we will drink
    heavily and then I will slap it onto the bar and let you rip into
    it, I know you are rearing to go but it will be a more pleasant
    experience all around if we are both blind drunk.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 18, 2007
    #14
  15. Guest

    dorayme Guest

    In article <6wN9j.25077$>,
    "rf" <> wrote:

    > > but I am yet to get to practical things like ways to make the
    > > parent grow height to cover the floated children. The div clear
    > > route is well known, the overflow is very interesting and I have
    > > yet to look closely at it.

    >
    > dorayme, both you and Ben C are *almost* there.
    >


    This sounds a touch... ahem... never mind... it is early, I have
    a stack of work, I must keep calm...

    Let me just say, for my part, I am not really anywhere - think
    John Lennon's Nowhere Man.

    My "yet to get" was meant to refer to that story I was telling,
    it is really incomplete...

    Still, I found your subsequent remarks interesting and will study
    them in due course. I return to my important educational work on
    floats at Xmas. <g>

    > The thing to look for is block formatting context:
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#block-formatting


    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 18, 2007
    #15
  16. Guest

    Ben C Guest

    On 2007-12-18, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Ben C <> wrote:
    >
    >> >> dorayme has a webpage about containment of descendent floats with some
    >> >> examples but I can't find the url.
    >> >
    >> > It is (in its unfinishedness) at:
    >> >
    >> > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page1.html

    >>
    >> That's more about float placing. I meant the other one. You had a box
    >> with some floats in it and some parables about parents ignoring their
    >> children.

    >
    > Ah... you mean:
    >
    > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouseOfAlice/normalHouse.html


    Yes that's the one I was thinking of.

    > I found it still on the server. Well, that one was just an
    > earlier version of the longer one. You have to read the longer
    > one on a bit to see that it *is* concerned about how to think
    > about parents, floated children and height.


    You're right, I had forgotten that. I only remembered the next bit about
    how floats and inlines arrange themselves.

    In fact there's some good stuff there about container heights between
    about pages 3 and 5 which might be useful to the OP to look at.
     
    Ben C, Dec 18, 2007
    #16
  17. Guest

    rf Guest

    "Ben C" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2007-12-18, rf <> wrote:


    >>>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets/ms
    >>>> g/22eadc1c6622d5c5


    >> The thing to look for is block formatting context:
    >> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#block-formatting

    >
    > Ahem. I believe I explained all this in the link above, pointing out
    > that the places to look are 9.4.1 and 10.6.7.
    >
    > "*almost* there" indeed.


    Sorry. As you can see that link wrapped and I couldn't be bothered putting
    it back together again.

    --
    Richard.
     
    rf, Dec 18, 2007
    #17
  18. Guest

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ben C <> wrote:

    > On 2007-12-18, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Ben C <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> >> dorayme has a webpage about containment of descendent floats with some
    > >> >> examples but I can't find the url.
    > >> >
    > >> > It is (in its unfinishedness) at:
    > >> >
    > >> > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page1.html
    > >>
    > >> That's more about float placing. I meant the other one. You had a box
    > >> with some floats in it and some parables about parents ignoring their
    > >> children.

    > >
    > > Ah... you mean:
    > >
    > > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouseOfAlice/normalHouse.html

    >
    > Yes that's the one I was thinking of.
    >
    > > I found it still on the server. Well, that one was just an
    > > earlier version of the longer one. You have to read the longer
    > > one on a bit to see that it *is* concerned about how to think
    > > about parents, floated children and height.

    >
    > You're right, I had forgotten that. I only remembered the next bit about
    > how floats and inlines arrange themselves.
    >
    > In fact there's some good stuff there about container heights between
    > about pages 3 and 5 which might be useful to the OP to look at.


    I now need to incorporate some things about these block
    formatting contexts of which you (and rf) speak. Interesting
    stuff. I am thinking of ditching a lot of stuff about browser
    differences, these differences simply take up all of one's time!
    I wish the W3C had made their own browser to follow their own
    standards. Then everyone would see at a glance how IE and Safari
    and FF measure up to the standard.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 19, 2007
    #18
  19. Guest

    Ben C Guest

    On 2007-12-19, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Ben C <> wrote:

    [...]
    >> >> > It is (in its unfinishedness) at:
    >> >> >
    >> >> > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page1.html
    >> >>
    >> >> That's more about float placing. I meant the other one. You had a box
    >> >> with some floats in it and some parables about parents ignoring their
    >> >> children.
    >> >
    >> > Ah... you mean:
    >> >
    >> > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouseOfAlice/normalHouse.html

    >>
    >> Yes that's the one I was thinking of.
    >>
    >> > I found it still on the server. Well, that one was just an
    >> > earlier version of the longer one. You have to read the longer
    >> > one on a bit to see that it *is* concerned about how to think
    >> > about parents, floated children and height.

    >>
    >> You're right, I had forgotten that. I only remembered the next bit about
    >> how floats and inlines arrange themselves.
    >>
    >> In fact there's some good stuff there about container heights between
    >> about pages 3 and 5 which might be useful to the OP to look at.

    >
    > I now need to incorporate some things about these block
    > formatting contexts of which you (and rf) speak. Interesting
    > stuff.


    Yes. The idea there is that they limit the scope of floats. Usually
    floats spill out of their containers and anything inline that's in the
    way has to flow around them.

    Block formatting contexts limit the damage. A float never sticks out of
    one or into one. Clear refers to floats within your own BFC. A BFC is
    the smallest guaranteed "sealed environment" for floats. All the other
    rules for BFCs can be understood in terms of this basic idea.

    The purpose of block formatting contexts is floats, they aren't relevant
    to anything else that I can see. They might have been named "float
    contexts" instead, perhaps less confusingly.

    > I am thinking of ditching a lot of stuff about browser
    > differences, these differences simply take up all of one's time!


    Yes, good plan. That's a separate document (to put off writing until
    people have stopped using IE anyway). Although you might want to make
    brief mention of the Firefox/IE7 shared non-conformance of always
    putting floats in the next line if there are any inlines preceding them,
    since that's quite a big one.

    > I wish the W3C had made their own browser to follow their own
    > standards.


    I think that's what Amaya was meant to be, but it is hopeless at
    following the standards getting basic things completely wrong. The
    authoring tool side of it is said to be not bad however if you like that
    kind of thing.

    > Then everyone would see at a glance how IE and Safari and FF measure
    > up to the standard.


    Certainly a proper reference implementation would be good. For one thing
    it would prove whether it was actually possible.
     
    Ben C, Dec 19, 2007
    #19
  20. Guest

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ben C <> wrote:

    > The purpose of block formatting contexts is floats, they aren't relevant
    > to anything else that I can see. They might have been named "float
    > contexts" instead, perhaps less confusingly.


    OK. So when I am thinking and saying things like containers are
    normally blind to their floated children, except for some IE
    family containers (which auto grow height for them), I will be
    adding that there is an official way to cause parents to see
    their floated children, namely to trigger a BFC. An author can
    always specify a height: but this "covering of the children" is
    mere forcing the blind parent to provide something, it shows no
    inner awareness (as it were) of the floated children. However, an
    author giving the container a BFC gives the parent a more inner
    intelligence, an awareness that can fend for itself, in effect,
    it covers its floated children all by itself once the author has
    triggered some genes in it...

    Just thinking aloud...

    > > I am thinking of ditching a lot of stuff about browser
    > > differences, these differences simply take up all of one's time!

    >
    > Yes, good plan. That's a separate document (to put off writing until
    > people have stopped using IE anyway). Although you might want to make
    > brief mention of the Firefox/IE7 shared non-conformance of always
    > putting floats in the next line if there are any inlines preceding them,
    > since that's quite a big one.
    >


    And, of course, there is the ever present danger in these things
    that I don't know what browser a reader might be using to read my
    efforts. So some stuff about browsers will be inevitable

    > > I wish the W3C had made their own browser to follow their own
    > > standards.

    >
    > I think that's what Amaya was meant to be, but it is hopeless at
    > following the standards getting basic things completely wrong. The
    > authoring tool side of it is said to be not bad however if you like that
    > kind of thing.
    >
    > > Then everyone would see at a glance how IE and Safari and FF measure
    > > up to the standard.

    >
    > Certainly a proper reference implementation would be good. For one thing
    > it would prove whether it was actually possible.


    I like this thought of yours. Damn good one, is it really
    possible to follow the standards as written? It may not be. (In
    fact, it is *probably not possible* under some rigid
    interpretation <g>).

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 19, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Eric
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    757
    clintonG
    Dec 24, 2004
  2. SebiF
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    584
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    621
    John Timney \(MVP\)
    Jun 19, 2006
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    536
  5. jenny wilkinson
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    634
    jenny wilkinson
    Mar 20, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page