> John Horner wrote: > > * floated elements too big for the enclosing element "spill out" > > * except on IE, where they stretch the enclosing element > > > > that's a bit simplified, but essentially correct, right? > > > My question is, *why* is the correct behaviour the first one? It > > takes a lot of people by surprise and they often see what IE does as > > the natural and obvious thing to do. > > - div A has dimensions and they should be respected,
But even if you don't give Div A a set height it won't expand. > - no matter the size of the content: div B, > - except in IE/win, where we need workarounds. > > A standard-compliant browser will let us choose if we want the container > to expand, or not. No height, or min-height only, on div A, and it will > behave as in IE/win across browserland. Sorry, I can't test my statement here, so if I am wrong please correct me, but as far as I remember taking out the set height (or min-height) of Div B will reduce Div A to 0 height. Floating Div B has got a similar effect to giving position:absolute - Div A will ignore the existance of Div B. ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
