width based on content

Discussion in 'HTML' started by richard, Feb 15, 2011.

  1. richard

    richard Guest

    In CSS width has two basic uses.
    1) width:auto causes the container to expand the entire width of it's
    container.
    2) width:100px defines the width to be that and no more or no less.

    Ok I know about length and % too.

    What I am looking at doing is basing the width on the content .

    <div>example 1</div>
    <div> This is example 2</div>

    I don't see the need of having a 500px wide division just to show something
    short in it like "Hi!".

    You might say I'm say I'm looking for something flexible like a table cell.

    yeah yeah, I know. You're gonna mouth off about my intelligence.
    because we all know you were such an expert to begin with.
     
    richard, Feb 15, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. richard wrote:

    > In CSS width has two basic uses.
    > 1) width:auto causes the container to expand the entire width of it's
    > container.
    > 2) width:100px defines the width to be that and no more or no less.
    >
    > Ok I know about length and % too.
    >
    > What I am looking at doing is basing the width on the content .
    >
    > <div>example 1</div>
    > <div> This is example 2</div>
    >
    > I don't see the need of having a 500px wide division just to show
    > something short in it like "Hi!".
    >
    > You might say I'm say I'm looking for something flexible like a table
    > cell.


    How about using^W

    > yeah yeah, I know. You're gonna mouth off about my intelligence.
    > because we all know you were such an expert to begin with.


    Oops. <deletes advice>

    --
    -bts
    -It's "its", not "it's"
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Feb 15, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. richard

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:19:36 -0600, Ben C wrote:

    > On 2011-02-15, richard <> wrote:
    >> In CSS width has two basic uses.
    >> 1) width:auto causes the container to expand the entire width of it's
    >> container.
    >> 2) width:100px defines the width to be that and no more or no less.
    >>
    >> Ok I know about length and % too.
    >>
    >> What I am looking at doing is basing the width on the content .
    >>
    >><div>example 1</div>
    >><div> This is example 2</div>
    >>
    >> I don't see the need of having a 500px wide division just to show something
    >> short in it like "Hi!".
    >>
    >> You might say I'm say I'm looking for something flexible like a table cell.

    >
    > You need a "shrink-to-fit" container. A table cell will do that, but so
    > will a float, an inline-block, or anything position: fixed or absolute.
    >
    > So you choose whichever's other side effects you mind working around
    > least in the circumstances. Probably float.
    >
    > In CSS3 I think they are proposing something like a choice between
    > width: greedy or width: shrink-to-fit for all elements, which would be a
    > good idea all round.
    >
    >> yeah yeah, I know. You're gonna mouth off about my intelligence.
    >> because we all know you were such an expert to begin with.

    >
    > Actually your post was perfectly intelligent.


    Thanks.
    I found one answer to use <span> as an inline-block.
    Works for me.
     
    richard, Feb 15, 2011
    #3
  4. richard

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    Ben C <> wrote:

    > On 2011-02-15, richard <> wrote:
    > > In CSS width has two basic uses.
    > > 1) width:auto causes the container to expand the entire width of it's
    > > container.
    > > 2) width:100px defines the width to be that and no more or no less.
    > >
    > > Ok I know about length and % too.
    > >
    > > What I am looking at doing is basing the width on the content .
    > >
    > ><div>example 1</div>
    > ><div> This is example 2</div>
    > >
    > > I don't see the need of having a 500px wide division just to show something
    > > short in it like "Hi!".
    > >
    > > You might say I'm say I'm looking for something flexible like a table cell.

    >
    > You need a "shrink-to-fit" container. A table cell will do that, but so
    > will a float, an inline-block, or anything position: fixed or absolute.
    >
    > So you choose whichever's other side effects you mind working around
    > least in the circumstances. Probably float.
    >
    > In CSS3 I think they are proposing something like a choice between
    > width: greedy or width: shrink-to-fit for all elements, which would be a
    > good idea all round.


    Ah - an intelligent response from a gentleman as opposed to a wise guy.

    Good to see.

    --
    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, Feb 15, 2011
    #4
  5. On 02/15/2011 04:32 PM, Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > richard<> writes:
    >
    >> yeah yeah, I know. You're gonna mouth off about my intelligence.

    >
    > No, I'm going to ignore your question because you're being a jerk. Your
    > refusal to learn is no one's fault but your own.
    >
    > sherm--
    >


    Him saying that is not his refusal to learn - its just him anticipating
    the know-it-alls dealing with him as if he was an idiot to ask such a
    simple question.

    --
    Simplicity and Knowledge are all relative. You may find it strange that
    someone would ask such a "simple" question. Had he known he wouldn't
    have asked!
     
    Kamron Bennett, Feb 16, 2011
    #5

  6. >
    > Ah - an intelligent response from a gentleman as opposed to a wise guy.
    >
    > Good to see.
    >


    Well Said!

    It hurts the learning process when "Wise Guys/Know-it-Alls," behave as
    if asking a question is an insult to one's intelligence. And you are
    dumb to ask a question that may seem trivial. Guess what - I wouldn't
    ask if I knew, neither am I going to ask "you" with the chip on your
    shoulder and pent up expired rage from high school days when
    know-it-alls were outcasts.
     
    Kamron Bennett, Feb 16, 2011
    #6
  7. richard

    P E Schoen Guest

    "Sherm Pendley" wrote in message
    news:...

    > Kamron Bennett <> writes:


    >> Him saying that is not his refusal to learn


    > His past behavior here is one giant refusal to learn. His
    > statement above is nothing but an excuse - the "mouthing
    > off" he refers to is people pointing out his constant clueless
    > gibberish for what it is.


    I don't know all the past history, although even as a non-expert I have seen
    some very questionable statements by Richard that should not have been given
    as fact. But sometimes miscommunications and personal squabbles can lead to
    unfair prejudice.

    >> - its just him anticipating the know-it-alls dealing with him
    >> as if he was an idiot to ask such a simple question.


    > His anticipation is false, and your premature defense of him
    > is based on the incorrect assumption that he is *not* an idiot.


    Even if someone is seen as an "idiot" by others who have greater knowledge,
    it should not be a reason for knee-jerk attacks. But of course anyone who
    posts wrong information and asserts it as factual should be called for it.

    >> Simplicity and Knowledge are all relative. You may find it
    >> strange that someone would ask such a "simple" question.
    >> Had he known he wouldn't have asked!


    > Do you think I jump on *every* simple question with a similar
    > response? Of course not. My opinion of him is based on
    > *years* of putting up with his wilful ignorance, his stubborn
    > refusal to learn, and his habit of insulting and arguing with
    > those who try to teach him.


    > To be frank, your rush to make a snap judgement is making
    > you look like a bit of a jerk too - but time will tell, as it did
    > with Richard the St00pid.


    I'm not about to make a snap judgment about this, but some of the responses
    have seemed a bit like a free-for-all piling on that is like mob behavior.
    If he has in the past and still presently continued to proclaim falsehoods
    as fact, then I would agree that corrections are necessary, but some of the
    tone is disingenuous and a bit immature, and it does not contribute
    positively to whatever discussion there may be.

    The reason I'm responding to this is to point out a similar situation that I
    have found myself in with the rec.pets.dogs.behavior newsgroup. I admit to
    knowing possibly even less about dogs than HTML, and even with that I am a
    novice, but I would like to be respected even if I have expressed some
    ignorance and difficulty comprehending concepts or doing diligent research.

    But what has happened there is that some unfortunate incidents in the past,
    and the resulting exchange of insults and defamatory remarks, resulted in a
    similar kneejerk rejection of any attempt on my part to initiate or
    participate in civil discussion. I don't have enough experience with
    advanced HTML to comment on Richard's "stupidity", but it seems as if here
    he has attempted to ask a reasonable question and he is understandably
    expecting another "spanking". But I don't presume to intrude or hold anyone
    in judgment. I am just making an observation as a relative "newbie", and I
    don't like to see threads become a mess of OT rude and inflammatory remarks,
    rather than simple refutation of erroneous statements.

    Thanks for being helpful to me.

    Paul
     
    P E Schoen, Feb 16, 2011
    #7
  8. P E Schoen wrote:
    ....
    > If he has in the past and still presently continued to proclaim
    > falsehoods as fact, then I would agree that corrections are
    > necessary, but some of the tone is disingenuous and a bit immature,
    > and it does not contribute positively to whatever discussion there
    > may be.


    richard (Bullis) has a long-time reputation. It is not exactly that he
    is really "st00pid" (again, a name he earned more than a decade ago),
    but mostly because of his attitude. Witness the last line of his first
    post in this thread.

    Many times he will respond to advice given him with a comment similar to
    "That's not what I wanted, asshole!" and he almost never thanks anyone
    for correct advice. And this is not just here in HTML groups; he's all
    over Usenet.

    I guess one could say he is a Usenet legend.

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Feb 16, 2011
    #8
  9. On Feb 16, 4:20 am, Kamron Bennett <> wrote:
    > On 02/15/2011 04:32 PM, Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >
    > > richard<>  writes:

    >
    > >> yeah yeah, I know. You're gonna mouth off about my intelligence.

    >
    > > No, I'm going to ignore your question because you're being a jerk. Your
    > > refusal to learn is no one's fault but your own.

    >
    > > sherm--

    >
    > Him saying that is not his refusal to learn - its just him anticipating
    > the know-it-alls dealing with him as if he was an idiot to ask such a
    > simple question.

    He has been around for many years and has not managed to learn in all
    that time. He is also habitually rude even when people do try to help
    him.
    Please do not make such statements until you know what you are talking
    about.
     
    Captain Paralytic, Feb 16, 2011
    #9
  10. richard

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    Sherm Pendley <> wrote:

    > "P E Schoen" <> writes:
    >
    > > I'm not about to make a snap judgment about this, but some of the
    > > responses have seemed a bit like a free-for-all piling on that is like
    > > mob behavior.

    >
    > I think you should review this thread - Richard's question and my resp-
    > onse to it. He basically said "I think this group is full of jerks, but
    > I'm going to ask a question anyway," and I responded by saying some-
    > thing along the lines of "no, I'm not going to answer someone who just
    > called me a jerk."
    >
    > I didn't make a snap judgement, and I didn't pile on - I responded to
    > Richard's own attitude.
    >
    > > I am just making an observation as a relative "newbie"

    >
    > You should review Richard's history here. He's been asking ridiculous
    > questions here for *years*, arguing against or ignoring the answers,
    > then asking the same thing a short time later. My opinion of him isn't
    > a snap judgement based on a single newbie question; he's spent a long
    > time developing his reputation here.


    In which case, I would recommend not responding at all to his request.

    The first time I ever posted here (several years ago now) it was because
    I had a problem with unexplained extra space in table cells. I'd posted
    some quick html which included the likes of <p></p> to space things out
    a bit. What I then received was a barrage of abuse about that and other
    irrelevancies, which I found astonishing. A bit later, along comes Ben C
    who quite calmly said to the effect of "If you've left out the DOCTYPE
    you've probably triggered quirks mode".

    Unfortunately:

    a) I'd never previously understood the significance of the DOCTYPE
    b) I'd never heard of quirks mode

    so I went off and read up about that and so fixed my problem.

    Too bad more people don't take this simple, straightforward, and useful
    approach.

    --
    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, Feb 16, 2011
    #10
  11. Tim Streater wrote:

    > so I went off and read up about that and so fixed my problem.


    That's great, and I applaud your efforts. Problem is that richard never
    does that, instead just blunders along and asks the same kind of
    questions over and over without ever learning. He also rarely will show
    any working/not working example of his attempts by publishing an URL of
    his efforts.

    Have you ever seen his web site? http://1littleworld.net/

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Feb 16, 2011
    #11
  12. richard

    Doug Miller Guest

    In article <ijh5v7$b0n$-september.org>, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:
    >Tim Streater wrote:
    >
    >> so I went off and read up about that and so fixed my problem.

    >
    >That's great, and I applaud your efforts. Problem is that richard never
    >does that, instead just blunders along and asks the same kind of
    >questions over and over without ever learning. He also rarely will show
    >any working/not working example of his attempts by publishing an URL of
    >his efforts.
    >
    >Have you ever seen his web site? http://1littleworld.net/
    >

    That's ... amazing.
     
    Doug Miller, Feb 16, 2011
    #12
  13. richard

    dorayme Guest

    In article <ijhbl4$pef$-september.org>,
    (Doug Miller) wrote:

    > In article <ijh5v7$b0n$-september.org>, "Beauregard T.
    > Shagnasty" <> wrote:

    ....
    > >Have you ever seen his web site?
    > >

    > That's ... amazing.


    You are easily amazed. What happens when you come across really
    interesting things like very clever scientific theories, do you
    suffer near heart attacks then? Is that a common trait of members
    of the GRW (Gang of Richard Watchers)? Do your members have some
    common economically rational health insurance to have doctors
    watch out for your supersensitive conditions?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Feb 16, 2011
    #13
  14. richard

    richard Guest

    On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:44:55 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > Tim Streater wrote:
    >
    >> so I went off and read up about that and so fixed my problem.

    >
    > That's great, and I applaud your efforts. Problem is that richard never
    > does that, instead just blunders along and asks the same kind of
    > questions over and over without ever learning. He also rarely will show
    > any working/not working example of his attempts by publishing an URL of
    > his efforts.
    >
    > Have you ever seen his web site? http://1littleworld.net/


    Did you know that many people buy domain names purely for email?
    The only reason I put that piece of crap up was so that you'd see something
    instead of "index of".

    When I feel it is necessary, I do post an example to my site and link to it
    for my question. I also validate my code, which is far more than most
    people even consider doing.

    You never seem to post a question or a URL to anything for any reason. You
    just mouth off.
     
    richard, Feb 16, 2011
    #14
  15. richard

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    Sherm Pendley <> wrote:

    > Did you post a snippet of code, or a URL to a complete page? I wonder,
    > because much of the "abuse" that newcomers receive here results from
    > their doing the former, and because (in your summary) Ben appeared to
    > be guessing about whether you'd left out the DOCTYPE or not. It's lucky
    > that his guess turned out to be correct, but that doesn't negate the
    > point that he shouldn't have had to guess to begin with, and would not
    > have had to do so if you'd posted a URL.


    I posted a small complete example (25 lines or so) that I had checked to
    be sure that it exhibited the problem I was experiencing. That is, it
    started with <html> and ended with </html> (i.e., no DOCTYPE).

    I'd wanted to make it small to not clutter up the post, and so had
    thrown in some <p></p> as a cheap way to lay it out a bit. Probably
    today I'd know enough to just put in some margin on the table or
    something.

    > If you posted a snippet, the requests ("abuse," as you refer to it) for
    > a URL turned out to be far from irrelevant. The answer *did* turn out
    > to be something you hadn't included, which would have been revealed
    > if you'd posted a URL.


    Well, here's another thing. This assumes that a poster has some webspace
    to call their own. At the time I was posting from work and it was not
    going to be possible to give a work-based URL, and outside work I had no
    use (at the time) for my own website. (In fact, I'm not sure that my
    existing ISP even offers it.)

    This can be both good and bad. Good is that it can force one to shrink
    an example down to the minimum that exhibits the problem, which can
    highlight the issue so no post is required at all :)

    Bad is that a more complex issue may not be reducible in this way.
    Nothing is more off-putting that 500 lines of code posted with the
    assumption that someone is going wade through it.

    > Or, were the comments about invalid code?


    It *felt* like I was being picked up on stuff I wasn't asking about and
    which had nothing to do with the issue, such as the <p></p>.

    > If so, the fact is that, by
    > definition, there is no "correct" or "incorrect" way for a browser to
    > handle invalid code. That being the case, the best way to handle any
    > unexpected behavior is to first validate one's code, to eliminate one
    > possible source of problems.


    I agree, but suppose the newbie doesn't know that? This is one of that
    nice Mr. Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns", just as quirks mode was for me.
    If you don't know you don't know it, you can't ask questions about it.

    > Again, I haven't checked the archives, and I apologize if I've misread
    > the situation, but I've seen newbies react badly to well-intentioned
    > and sound advice far too many times to take any claim of "abuse" as a
    > given. Far more often, a newbie has put a lot of work into a product,
    > and reached a point where he or she is highly frustrated because it
    > isn't working. When one has reached such a point (and I've certainly
    > been there myself), it's all too easy to misinterpret constructive,
    > fact-based criticism as abuse or an attack.


    Sure. I guess the thing is very often a newbie doesn't know how to ask a
    succinct question that is to the point.

    Anyway - thanks for the thoughtful response.

    --
    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, Feb 16, 2011
    #15
  16. On Feb 16, 8:41 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article <ijhbl4$-september.org>,
    >   (Doug Miller) wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > In article <ijh5v7$-september.org>, "Beauregard T.
    > > Shagnasty" <> wrote:

    > ...
    > > >Have you ever seen his web site?  

    >
    > > That's ... amazing.

    >
    > You are easily amazed.

    Maybe he means that it's amazing that someone who has been posting
    questions on html & php for so long has only managed to come up with a
    site like that.
     
    Captain Paralytic, Feb 16, 2011
    #16
  17. On 02/16/2011 09:20 AM, Captain Paralytic wrote:
    > On Feb 16, 4:20 am, Kamron Bennett <> wrote:
    >> On 02/15/2011 04:32 PM, Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >>
    >>> richard<> writes:

    >>
    >>>> yeah yeah, I know. You're gonna mouth off about my intelligence.

    >>
    >>> No, I'm going to ignore your question because you're being a jerk. Your
    >>> refusal to learn is no one's fault but your own.

    >>
    >>> sherm--

    >>
    >> Him saying that is not his refusal to learn - its just him anticipating
    >> the know-it-alls dealing with him as if he was an idiot to ask such a
    >> simple question.

    > He has been around for many years and has not managed to learn in all
    > that time. He is also habitually rude even when people do try to help
    > him.


    > Please do not make such statements until you know what you are talking
    > about.


    Well, it still has something to do with the way he was or still is
    treated. Even though he may be lazy given your descriptions and based
    on what many people tend to do at times but *I* sincerely disagree
    with being so harsh. With many people laziness is inborn and
    therefore quite hard to get rid of. Additionally, a lot of persons
    find comfort in newsgroups (myself included) and would much prefer
    getting a response from on as opposed to google, I know at times
    google may not be a good resource for a question. I tried to find the
    difference between Twin Cam and Double Overhead cam and to this day
    I haven't found a satisfying response. Twin Cam is described as Double
    Overhead Cam by some sources. I know/swear there is a difference
    which was explained to me by a mechanic, hence my point some people
    get things done by being "spoon fed."

    Accept my apologies for digressing however?
     
    Kamron Bennett, Feb 16, 2011
    #17
  18. richard

    richard Guest

    On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:11:12 -0500, Kamron Bennett wrote:

    > On 02/16/2011 09:20 AM, Captain Paralytic wrote:
    >> On Feb 16, 4:20 am, Kamron Bennett <> wrote:
    >>> On 02/15/2011 04:32 PM, Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> richard<> writes:
    >>>
    >>>>> yeah yeah, I know. You're gonna mouth off about my intelligence.
    >>>
    >>>> No, I'm going to ignore your question because you're being a jerk. Your
    >>>> refusal to learn is no one's fault but your own.
    >>>
    >>>> sherm--
    >>>
    >>> Him saying that is not his refusal to learn - its just him anticipating
    >>> the know-it-alls dealing with him as if he was an idiot to ask such a
    >>> simple question.

    >> He has been around for many years and has not managed to learn in all
    >> that time. He is also habitually rude even when people do try to help
    >> him.

    >
    >> Please do not make such statements until you know what you are talking
    >> about.

    >
    > Well, it still has something to do with the way he was or still is
    > treated. Even though he may be lazy given your descriptions and based
    > on what many people tend to do at times but *I* sincerely disagree
    > with being so harsh. With many people laziness is inborn and
    > therefore quite hard to get rid of. Additionally, a lot of persons
    > find comfort in newsgroups (myself included) and would much prefer
    > getting a response from on as opposed to google, I know at times
    > google may not be a good resource for a question. I tried to find the
    > difference between Twin Cam and Double Overhead cam and to this day
    > I haven't found a satisfying response. Twin Cam is described as Double
    > Overhead Cam by some sources. I know/swear there is a difference
    > which was explained to me by a mechanic, hence my point some people
    > get things done by being "spoon fed."
    >
    > Accept my apologies for digressing however?


    Precisely. When googling for specific information, the responses are not
    based upon what you want, but upon how much advertising a particular site
    might have, that may or may not have anything related to your inquiry.

    While one may get harassed, flamed and what not in a newsgroup, someone is
    bound to come along with exactly the information you want.

    As to your question on "cams", twin does not necessarily mean they are
    positioned "overhead". DOHC came along after the twin cams. But I think
    it's all in the matter as to which mechanic you speak to as to how it gets
    defined.
     
    richard, Feb 16, 2011
    #18
  19. richard

    Doug Miller Guest

    In article <>, Captain Paralytic <> wrote:
    >On Feb 16, 8:41=A0pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    >> In article <ijhbl4$-september.org>,
    >> = (Doug Miller) wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > In article <ijh5v7$-september.org>, "Beauregard T.
    >> > Shagnasty" <> wrote:

    >> ...
    >> > >Have you ever seen his web site? =A0

    >>
    >> > That's ... amazing.

    >>
    >> You are easily amazed.

    >Maybe he means that it's amazing that someone who has been posting
    >questions on html & php for so long has only managed to come up with a
    >site like that.


    ;-)
     
    Doug Miller, Feb 16, 2011
    #19
  20. richard

    Doug Miller Guest

    In article <ijhlih$lsp$>, Kamron Bennett <i-hate-rude-wise-guys/> wrote:

    >I tried to find the
    >difference between Twin Cam and Double Overhead cam and to this day
    >I haven't found a satisfying response. Twin Cam is described as Double
    >Overhead Cam by some sources. I know/swear there is a difference
    >which was explained to me by a mechanic, hence my point some people
    >get things done by being "spoon fed."


    It's waaaaay OT for this group, but if you want to email me (doug at milmac
    dot com) I'll be happy to explain it to you. I've done most of my own auto
    repairs and service for over 30 years, including several engine and
    transmission rebuilds.
     
    Doug Miller, Feb 16, 2011
    #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. AndrewF
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    850
    Bruce Barker
    Oct 10, 2005
  2. Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,129
    Toby Inkster
    Jan 28, 2005
  3. ppcguy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,336
    Toby Inkster
    Aug 26, 2005
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    524
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,604
Loading...

Share This Page