Re: float moan

Discussion in 'HTML' started by dorayme, Apr 20, 2012.

  1. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Tim Streater <> wrote:

    > I wanted to have a fixed size scrollable area within a table cell, and
    > googling threw this up:
    >
    >
    > .scrollarea
    > {
    > width: 300px;
    > height: 276px;
    > padding-left: 5px;
    > padding-right: 5px;
    > border-color: #6699CC;
    > border-width: 1px;
    > border-style: solid;
    > float: left;
    > overflow: auto;
    > }
    >
    > I use it like this:
    >
    > <tr id='glist'>
    >
    > <td style="vertical-align: top; padding-right: 15px;">Group List:</td>
    >
    > <td style="vertical-align: top; background-color: #F0F0FF; padding:
    > 3px;"><span class='scrollarea' id='group_list'></span></td>
    >
    > </tr>
    >
    >
    > It's unlikely I could have come up with the scrollarea class by myself,
    > but it seems to do the job I wanted it to: a fixed area within a table
    > cell that I can write stuff into and which will have a vertical scroll
    > bar when necessary.
    >
    > However I am at a loss to understand what the float:left does other than
    > make it work. I tried removing it and the <span> content overflowed the
    > table cell, and every line of the content appeared to be underlined or
    > possibly have a border. Why does the float have this effect?


    Making the span a float trips it into being what is called a Block
    Formatting Context. This context is actually owned by Ben C but I hire
    it off him for an undisclosed fee which I send him regularly. I have a
    few things about it at

    <http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page8.php>

    and you can read a lot more by searching these usenet groups.

    Also

    <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visuren.html#block-formatting>

    What you are seeing as underlining, btw, is actually border on the
    span. When you float, the element makes like a block, a fortress where
    intruders are not welcome, the whole thing is a block and the border
    goes all around it (rather than the span remaining its default
    display: inline and so all its lines have the focus taken off it.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 20, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. dorayme

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Tim Streater <> wrote:


    > > However I am at a loss to understand what the float:left does other than
    > > make it work. I tried removing it and the <span> content overflowed the
    > > table cell, and every line of the content appeared to be underlined or
    > > possibly have a border. Why does the float have this effect?

    >
    > Making the span a float trips it into being what is called a Block
    > Formatting Context. This context is actually owned by Ben C but I hire
    > it off him for an undisclosed fee which I send him regularly.


    Ben deserves every penny.

    > I have a few things about it at
    >
    > <http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page8.php>


    Ah, those useful pages again. :)

    > and you can read a lot more by searching these usenet groups.
    >
    > Also
    >
    > <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visuren.html#block-formatting>
    >
    > What you are seeing as underlining, btw, is actually border on the
    > span. When you float, the element makes like a block, a fortress where
    > intruders are not welcome, the whole thing is a block and the border
    > goes all around it (rather than the span remaining its default
    > display: inline and so all its lines have the focus taken off it.


    So the originator of this class was just after a side-effect then.
    Always a bad idea to do that, IMO.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Apr 20, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Tim Streater <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > Tim Streater <> wrote:

    >

    ....
    > >
    > > What you are seeing as underlining, btw, is actually border on the
    > > span. When you float, the element makes like a block, a fortress where
    > > intruders are not welcome, the whole thing is a block and the border
    > > goes all around it (rather than the span remaining its default
    > > display: inline and so all its lines have the focus taken off it.

    >
    > So the originator of this class was just after a side-effect then.
    > Always a bad idea to do that, IMO.


    The person who used this class might have had other things he wanted,
    I don't know without seeing his original. What is a side effect and
    what is not is a slippery concept in CSS. People sometimes have use
    floats for their shraxpand to fit properties, its *just styling*, they
    could use a table cell which also shraxpands (if the author does not
    go specify a width, if it is 'width: auto' in other words). Now, a
    conscious use of a table *just for this* would be a bad idea.

    Much interesting styling is smoke and mirrors and the bread-and-butter
    attitude that is appropriate to HTML is not so appropriate with CSS.
    Beaut things are negative margins, columns made from borders, and in
    fact, everything in CSS that is not quite what it seems to be! If it
    ever became completely tame and predictable and teachable to an Adobe
    robot then that would be a sad day. Whereas in HTML, everything should
    be exactly what it is.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 21, 2012
    #3
  4. dorayme

    Gus Richter Guest

    On 4/20/2012 3:30 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
    > So the originator of this class was just after a side-effect then.
    > Always a bad idea to do that, IMO.


    Not so at all. It is quite legit according to the specifications as I
    tried to explain. It is not so very long ago that web authors started
    fiddling around with CSS. In fact there was a sector dead set against
    it; that it would not fly, they would not use it, etc.. The web authors
    experimented and found things that worked and those that did not. This
    method worked for him and he posted it. I recall Ben and I discussing
    why and how of things regarding some aspect of CSS and having to look
    here and there on different pages in the specifications for the complete
    picture reasons and explanations. I would hazard to guess that the page
    you found is relatively old and reflects what a web author found as a
    solution without truly understanding the reason as to why and how it
    worked. If he did he would have included the alternate method with a DIV.

    --
    Gus
     
    Gus Richter, Apr 21, 2012
    #4
  5. dorayme

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Tim Streater <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > dorayme <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > In article <>,
    > > > Tim Streater <> wrote:

    > >

    > ...
    > > >
    > > > What you are seeing as underlining, btw, is actually border on the
    > > > span. When you float, the element makes like a block, a fortress where
    > > > intruders are not welcome, the whole thing is a block and the border
    > > > goes all around it (rather than the span remaining its default
    > > > display: inline and so all its lines have the focus taken off it.

    > >
    > > So the originator of this class was just after a side-effect then.
    > > Always a bad idea to do that, IMO.

    >
    > The person who used this class might have had other things he wanted,
    > I don't know without seeing his original. What is a side effect and
    > what is not is a slippery concept in CSS. People sometimes have use
    > floats for their shraxpand to fit properties, its *just styling*, they
    > could use a table cell which also shraxpands (if the author does not
    > go specify a width, if it is 'width: auto' in other words). Now, a
    > conscious use of a table *just for this* would be a bad idea.
    >
    > Much interesting styling is smoke and mirrors and the bread-and-butter
    > attitude that is appropriate to HTML is not so appropriate with CSS.
    > Beaut things are negative margins, columns made from borders, and in
    > fact, everything in CSS that is not quite what it seems to be! If it
    > ever became completely tame and predictable and teachable to an Adobe
    > robot then that would be a sad day. Whereas in HTML, everything should
    > be exactly what it is.


    Hmmm. You realise this is just what puts people off CSS? That may be OK
    is you like fiddling with CSS *for its own sake*. But personally I
    object to smoke and mirrors stuff because it takes time away from the
    main business. Well - never mind, and I'll say thanks again to avoid
    appearing ungracious.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Apr 21, 2012
    #5
  6. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Tim Streater <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > Tim Streater <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > In article <>,
    > > > dorayme <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > In article <>,
    > > > > Tim Streater <> wrote:
    > > >

    > > ...
    > > > >
    > > > > What you are seeing as underlining, btw, is actually border on the
    > > > > span. When you float, the element makes like a block, a fortress where
    > > > > intruders are not welcome, the whole thing is a block and the border
    > > > > goes all around it (rather than the span remaining its default
    > > > > display: inline and so all its lines have the focus taken off it.
    > > >
    > > > So the originator of this class was just after a side-effect then.
    > > > Always a bad idea to do that, IMO.

    > >
    > > The person who used this class might have had other things he wanted,
    > > I don't know without seeing his original. What is a side effect and
    > > what is not is a slippery concept in CSS. People sometimes have use
    > > floats for their shraxpand to fit properties, its *just styling*, they
    > > could use a table cell which also shraxpands (if the author does not
    > > go specify a width, if it is 'width: auto' in other words). Now, a
    > > conscious use of a table *just for this* would be a bad idea.
    > >
    > > Much interesting styling is smoke and mirrors and the bread-and-butter
    > > attitude that is appropriate to HTML is not so appropriate with CSS.
    > > Beaut things are negative margins, columns made from borders, and in
    > > fact, everything in CSS that is not quite what it seems to be! If it
    > > ever became completely tame and predictable and teachable to an Adobe
    > > robot then that would be a sad day. Whereas in HTML, everything should
    > > be exactly what it is.

    >
    > Hmmm. You realise this is just what puts people off CSS? That may be OK
    > is you like fiddling with CSS *for its own sake*. But personally I
    > object to smoke and mirrors stuff because it takes time away from the
    > main business.


    Well, I respect the attitude of liking properties that have names and
    behaviours that sound like what they do. And I respect, but with
    severe limitations, the practice of only using them for the purposes
    they were originally created for. There are - maybe - a few formally
    minded mechanics that have this attitude towards tools. However, my
    own experience is that the best of them find creative uses for their
    tools. (I know what I do in the garage to cars! You would be
    absolutely appalled - even though my cars and motor bikes have always
    run nicely. <g>).

    If anyone thinks that CSS has been as precise as mechanical tools in
    their purpose and effect, they might seriously be misjudging the
    reality.


    > Well - never mind, and I'll say thanks again to avoid
    > appearing ungracious.


    You never appear ungracious Tim. Please don't feel obliged. I post
    here because I find the issues interesting, in the hope that people
    will discuss these things. Not only to help with practical problems.
    You did ask a rather interesting question about why something worked
    and I tried to answer this as best as I could. But there are other
    issues that this leads onto and which you have no obligation at all to
    be interested in.

    Your idea of "the main business" of web pages and your concept of
    being interested in CSS "for its own sake" deserves a comment or two.

    Simple communication and not trying to be too arty about it is a fine
    thing. But aesthetics is something that is important to a lot of
    people, it makes things interesting and yes, for its own aesthetic
    sake. Sometimes the aesthetics is the main point.

    It is fine not to be interested in this aspect much. It is fine not to
    be interested in paintings or photos or films for their own sake but
    just for the practical message they communicate.

    But for many of us who are interested in more than the practical
    message of many things, aesthetics is important, it is an end in
    itself.

    Few good painters are uninterested in the properties of their
    materials and equipment who are also shy of veering from the
    instructions and ideas printed on their labels. I can't imagine my
    life as a keen photographer for so many years without being really
    interested in how my materials and equipment worked and thinking about
    how to use them in different ways, both in and out of the darkroom.

    Try useful absolute positioning without slapping on 'position:
    relative' on some container you want to position in relation to. The
    style is precisely for its side effect.

    <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/absolutely_relative_to_nearest_positio
    ned_ancestor.html>

    Seriously, Tim, CSS is riddled in more ways than you maybe are
    imagining with the usefulness of "side-effects" even for very
    practical purposes.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 21, 2012
    #6
  7. dorayme

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    dorayme <> wrote:

    > Your idea of "the main business" of web pages and your concept of
    > being interested in CSS "for its own sake" deserves a comment or two.
    >
    > Simple communication and not trying to be too arty about it is a fine
    > thing. But aesthetics is something that is important to a lot of
    > people, it makes things interesting and yes, for its own aesthetic
    > sake. Sometimes the aesthetics is the main point.


    Then perhaps its about how we define aesthetics. To me it includes doing
    things in the most simple, straightforward, and effective way, and from
    an engineering perspective it should be maintainable too.

    > It is fine not to be interested in this aspect much. It is fine not to
    > be interested in paintings or photos or films for their own sake but
    > just for the practical message they communicate.
    >
    > But for many of us who are interested in more than the practical
    > message of many things, aesthetics is important, it is an end in
    > itself.
    >
    > Few good painters are uninterested in the properties of their
    > materials and equipment who are also shy of veering from the
    > instructions and ideas printed on their labels. I can't imagine my
    > life as a keen photographer for so many years without being really
    > interested in how my materials and equipment worked and thinking about
    > how to use them in different ways, both in and out of the darkroom.


    But that only affects you. Software standards, however, will affect many
    people.

    > Try useful absolute positioning without slapping on 'position:
    > relative' on some container you want to position in relation to. The
    > style is precisely for its side effect.
    >
    > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/absolutely_relative_to_nearest_positio
    > ned_ancestor.html>
    >
    > Seriously, Tim, CSS is riddled in more ways than you maybe are
    > imagining with the usefulness of "side-effects" even for very
    > practical purposes.


    Oh, I can well imagine that. But I thought side effects were, in
    computer science, supposed to be a bad idea. Orthogonality comes to mind.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Apr 21, 2012
    #7
  8. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Tim Streater <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > > Your idea of "the main business" of web pages and your concept of
    > > being interested in CSS "for its own sake" deserves a comment or two.
    > >
    > > Simple communication and not trying to be too arty about it is a fine
    > > thing. But aesthetics is something that is important to a lot of
    > > people, it makes things interesting and yes, for its own aesthetic
    > > sake. Sometimes the aesthetics is the main point.

    >
    > Then perhaps its about how we define aesthetics.


    We don't have to define aesthetics to see that some people make and
    want many things including web pages for reasons other than simple
    communication.

    > To me it includes doing
    > things in the most simple, straightforward, and effective way, and from
    > an engineering perspective it should be maintainable too.
    >


    No sensible person would disagree. Beyond motherhood though, there are
    different "things" that are done and the "most simple,
    straightforward, and effective way" of doing them can involve an
    awfully fancy lot of footwork behind the scenes, by any objective
    measure of footwork.

    > > It is fine not to be interested in this aspect much. It is fine not to
    > > be interested in paintings or photos or films for their own sake but
    > > just for the practical message they communicate.
    > >
    > > But for many of us who are interested in more than the practical
    > > message of many things, aesthetics is important, it is an end in
    > > itself.
    > >
    > > Few good painters are uninterested in the properties of their
    > > materials and equipment who are also shy of veering from the
    > > instructions and ideas printed on their labels. I can't imagine my
    > > life as a keen photographer for so many years without being really
    > > interested in how my materials and equipment worked and thinking about
    > > how to use them in different ways, both in and out of the darkroom.

    >
    > But that only affects you.


    If I had taken less interest in how to make pictures, my pictures
    would have been different. If my pictures had been different, I am
    sure the effect on others would have been different too. It is the
    same for everyone who makes anything at all.

    > Software standards, however, will affect many
    > people.
    >


    So would the interpretations of the standards by the practitioners, so
    would the practitioners making do as best as they can with the
    limitations of the standards, so would thinking of ways to do things
    that are allowed under the standards but not nailed down.

    > > Try useful absolute positioning without slapping on 'position:
    > > relative' on some container you want to position in relation to. The
    > > style is precisely for its side effect.
    > >
    > > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/absolutely_relative_to_nearest_positio
    > > ned_ancestor.html>
    > >
    > > Seriously, Tim, CSS is riddled in more ways than you maybe are
    > > imagining with the usefulness of "side-effects" even for very
    > > practical purposes.

    >
    > Oh, I can well imagine that. But I thought side effects were, in
    > computer science, supposed to be a bad idea. Orthogonality comes to mind.


    CSS styling is not programming. Styling in general is not a science.

    Your interest in CSS is to style internet software programmes perhaps?
    Fair enough.

    Your original aim was to have "a fixed area within a table
    cell that [you] can write stuff into and which will have a vertical
    scroll bar when necessary". The span is fine if *you* style it. And
    there are different ways to do this as you have discovered by now.

    A div is finer still because someone else has styled it (browsers have
    default styles) and you need not and it will not puzzle anyone else
    who maintains your goods in the future. But there is no other reason
    that I know of to do with some sort of no-side-effects philosophy.

    Going back to basics, if you are going to go all direct and no
    nonsense, why not forget about any SPAN, DIV or HARRY and simply class
    the cell that has the fixed area? Maybe there is a reason, but just
    for the record, you can class that cell as "scrollarea" with the CSS
    you showed first up and you save on the HTML. And if you feel wobbly
    about the float, just change it to display: block;

    An interesting question is if all browsers like it:

    <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/fixedArea.html>

    Depending on your purpose and the rest of your page, you can easily
    work without even a table.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 21, 2012
    #8
  9. dorayme

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Tim Streater <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > dorayme <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Your idea of "the main business" of web pages and your concept of
    > > > being interested in CSS "for its own sake" deserves a comment or two.
    > > >
    > > > Simple communication and not trying to be too arty about it is a fine
    > > > thing. But aesthetics is something that is important to a lot of
    > > > people, it makes things interesting and yes, for its own aesthetic
    > > > sake. Sometimes the aesthetics is the main point.

    > >
    > > Then perhaps its about how we define aesthetics.

    >
    > We don't have to define aesthetics to see that some people make and
    > want many things including web pages for reasons other than simple
    > communication.
    >
    > > To me it includes doing
    > > things in the most simple, straightforward, and effective way, and from
    > > an engineering perspective it should be maintainable too.

    >
    > No sensible person would disagree. Beyond motherhood though, there are
    > different "things" that are done and the "most simple,
    > straightforward, and effective way" of doing them can involve an
    > awfully fancy lot of footwork behind the scenes, by any objective
    > measure of footwork.


    Of course. That's why I like coding in PHP/JavaScript - because so much
    boring stuff is done for me. I really can't be arsed these days to
    fiddle about in C worrying about the best way to concatenate strings. As
    long as the giant brain can do that for me reasonable quickly that
    suffices.

    > > > It is fine not to be interested in this aspect much. It is fine not to
    > > > be interested in paintings or photos or films for their own sake but
    > > > just for the practical message they communicate.
    > > >
    > > > But for many of us who are interested in more than the practical
    > > > message of many things, aesthetics is important, it is an end in
    > > > itself.
    > > >
    > > > Few good painters are uninterested in the properties of their
    > > > materials and equipment who are also shy of veering from the
    > > > instructions and ideas printed on their labels. I can't imagine my
    > > > life as a keen photographer for so many years without being really
    > > > interested in how my materials and equipment worked and thinking about
    > > > how to use them in different ways, both in and out of the darkroom.

    > >
    > > But that only affects you.

    >
    > If I had taken less interest in how to make pictures, my pictures
    > would have been different. If my pictures had been different, I am
    > sure the effect on others would have been different too. It is the
    > same for everyone who makes anything at all.


    That's a second order effect.

    > > Software standards, however, will affect many people.

    >
    > So would the interpretations of the standards by the practitioners, so
    > would the practitioners making do as best as they can with the
    > limitations of the standards, so would thinking of ways to do things
    > that are allowed under the standards but not nailed down.


    And these are first order effects.

    > > > Try useful absolute positioning without slapping on 'position:
    > > > relative' on some container you want to position in relation to. The
    > > > style is precisely for its side effect.
    > > >
    > > > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/absolutely_relative_to_nearest_positio
    > > > ned_ancestor.html>
    > > >
    > > > Seriously, Tim, CSS is riddled in more ways than you maybe are
    > > > imagining with the usefulness of "side-effects" even for very
    > > > practical purposes.

    > >
    > > Oh, I can well imagine that. But I thought side effects were, in
    > > computer science, supposed to be a bad idea. Orthogonality comes to mind.

    >
    > CSS styling is not programming. Styling in general is not a science.
    >
    > Your interest in CSS is to style internet software programmes perhaps?
    > Fair enough.


    I have to style in order to present an interface to the user. I have
    next to no artistic skills, as such, but I know ugly when I see it, and
    I know "bad user interface" when I see it, too.

    > Your original aim was to have "a fixed area within a table
    > cell that [you] can write stuff into and which will have a vertical
    > scroll bar when necessary". The span is fine if *you* style it. And
    > there are different ways to do this as you have discovered by now.
    >
    > A div is finer still because someone else has styled it (browsers have
    > default styles) and you need not and it will not puzzle anyone else
    > who maintains your goods in the future. But there is no other reason
    > that I know of to do with some sort of no-side-effects philosophy.


    But in the case of the span/float, that *was* a side-effect, which is
    how we got here in the first place. If whoever made that site in the
    first place had used a <div> or <span> with display:block I probably
    would never have made my original moan. But I thought float? WTF? and as
    it turns out to work because of a *side-effect* of float, well, that
    offends me.

    Another side effect I saw recently involves a simple for-loop in
    JavaScript. I would have written it as:

    for (j=0; j<maxval; j++)
    {
    // loop body
    }

    but that chap, you know, the one who thinks he's the moderator of
    comp.lang.javascript, wrote it thus:

    for (j=maxval; j--;)
    {
    // loop body
    }

    which is too geeky for words.

    > Going back to basics, if you are going to go all direct and no
    > nonsense, why not forget about any SPAN, DIV or HARRY and simply class
    > the cell that has the fixed area? Maybe there is a reason, but just
    > for the record, you can class that cell as "scrollarea" with the CSS
    > you showed first up and you save on the HTML. And if you feel wobbly
    > about the float, just change it to display: block;


    Well quite. But I have bigger fish to fry just now: my 17-year old TV is
    packing up and I have to keep the pheasants out of the vegetable patch
    (these two are not related).

    Meanwhile the reason I needed to style that <td> is stalled at present
    while I rethink the database and UI aspects

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Apr 22, 2012
    #9
  10. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Tim Streater <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >

    ....
    > > Your original aim was to have "a fixed area within a table
    > > cell that [you] can write stuff into and which will have a vertical
    > > scroll bar when necessary". The span is fine if *you* style it. And
    > > there are different ways to do this as you have discovered by now.
    > >
    > > A div is finer still because someone else has styled it (browsers have
    > > default styles) and you need not and it will not puzzle anyone else
    > > who maintains your goods in the future. But there is no other reason
    > > that I know of to do with some sort of no-side-effects philosophy.

    >
    > But in the case of the span/float, that *was* a side-effect, which is
    > how we got here in the first place. If whoever made that site in the
    > first place had used a <div> or <span> with display:block I probably
    > would never have made my original moan. But I thought float? WTF? and as
    > it turns out to work because of a *side-effect* of float, well, that
    > offends me.
    >


    Well, OK, we differ! Why it works *delights* me, it puts a smile on my
    face, a spring in my step, I eat a particularly hearty meal on the
    nights I use or even hear about the shrink-to-fit or other qualities
    of floats.

    And I am suspicious of your forensic analysis of side-effects, first
    order, second order, nth order... I am inclined to think, "hey,
    side-effects, shmide-effects!"

    CSS tools are not anywhere near the numbers and types that are
    available to the motor mechanic. I remember with admiration and awe a
    bloke I knew in Melbourne who was good at fixing anything on old
    Buicks: he walked around with a very big side-effect, a hammer! And
    was very effective with it for a surprising number of problems. No one
    would dare to express any fine reservations about the matter, in spite
    of there being lots of more appropriate tools. <g>

    ....

    >
    > > Going back to basics, if you are going to go all direct and no
    > > nonsense, why not forget about any SPAN, DIV or HARRY and simply class
    > > the cell that has the fixed area? Maybe there is a reason, but just
    > > for the record, you can class that cell as "scrollarea" with the CSS
    > > you showed first up and you save on the HTML. And if you feel wobbly
    > > about the float, just change it to display: block;

    >
    > Well quite. But I have bigger fish to fry just now: my 17-year old TV is
    > packing up and I have to keep the pheasants out of the vegetable patch
    > (these two are not related).
    >


    Let's hope they are not related.

    I saw a way for making do without a TV in a movie once. It requires
    you to have a deaf neighbour with a TV in your line of sight. You sit
    in a comfy chair with binocs.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 22, 2012
    #10
    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. Andy
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    6,332
    Roedy Green
    May 10, 2004
  2. bd
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    673
  3. Carsten Fuchs
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    1,660
    James Kanze
    Oct 8, 2009
  4. Tim Streater

    button/image moan

    Tim Streater, Apr 20, 2012, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    816
    Jonathan N. Little
    Apr 21, 2012
  5. Gus Richter

    Re: float moan

    Gus Richter, Apr 20, 2012, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    680
    dorayme
    Apr 21, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page