Yea, that was very kind of you.  If you want to insult me, just do 
it.  Saying "kindly' doesn't dress it up any more.  Besides, I won't be 
insulted anyway.

I wasn't following the thread, it opened a window, I didn't bother to 
search out the reason why.  How does that make me 'new' to the internet 
thing?  Oh yea, I am sure everyone here is working with wonderfully perfect 
email clients, too, and this only happened to me and my shitty Eudora client.

Why am I even wasting my time writing this?  I dunno.



At 01:16 PM 12/21/2004, you wrote:
>You're apparently new to this whole Internet thing so I'll kindly suggest
>that you try a different e-mail client.
>
>Ben Rogers
>http://www.c4.net
>v.508.240.0051
>f.508.240.0057
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ray Champagne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 12:03 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: Re: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who
> > wrote the w3c box model
> >
> > Why put scripts in your email?  This pops up two blank windows when I read
> > it....annoying at best dude.
> >
> > Ray
> >
> > At 11:59 AM 12/21/2004, you wrote:
> > >Ben Rogers wrote:
> > >
> > >  >>Well, your problems are manyfold.
> > >  >>
> > >  >>Firstly, you're depending on behaviour that was never mandated in the
> > >  >>specs, that being that a height of 100% means 100% of the available
> > >  >>window area or available area.
> > >  >
> > >  > I don't think he's "depending" on this behavior. He's lamenting the
> > fact
> > >  > that CSS doesn't support a mechanism for sizing elements relative to
> > the
> > >  > available space. In HTML all heights and widths are based on the
> > >available
> > >  > area, not the size of the containing block.
> > >
> > >What I meant by depending is that while such behaviour isn't specified
> > >in the spec, it is available in a fair few browsers in their quirks
> > >mode, but not in their standards mode.
> > >
> > >And thanks for the article below: I didn't know about the 100% height on
> > >the html element trick.
> > >
> > >  > I also think he's hoping that someone will prove him wrong. :)
> > >
> > >Well, I was trying to show that he was trying to put in a screw with a
> > >hammer rather than a screwdriver: it might kinda work, but it's not the
> > >right way, seeing as his problem was really a positioning one rather
> > >than
> > >
> > > >>If IE wasn't so braindead, it'd support fixed positioning. In this
> > case,
> > > >>you could position your elements wherever you liked relative to the
> > four
> > > >>sides of the screen. This is possible in Firefox, but not in IE,
> > because
> > > >>MS have slowly let IE die.
> > > >
> > > > Fixed positioning is possible in Internet Explorer. It is even
> > possible in
> > > > versions of Internet Explorer which pre-date the Mozilla project.
> > Again,
> > > > this is not about positioning, it's about sizing elements.
> > >
> > >But what he's trying to do *is* positioning, not sizing. I know he's
> > >talking about sizing, but what I'm trying to get across is that *his*
> > >particular problem isn't with sizing, and not with the differences
> > >between the MS and W3C box models.
> > >
> > >And IE doesn't support fixed positioning, nor has it ever done so. Try
> > >the code below in IE6, Firefox, Opera, and any other browsers you can
> > >lay your hands on if you don't believe me.
> > >
> > > > Also, Microsoft has not let Internet Explorer die. They are going to
> > tie
> > > > Internet Explorer upgrades to new releases of the operating system.
> > > > Personally, I wish they hadn't made this decision, but that's their
> > > > currently announced intention.
> > >
> > >And there only doing that because another strong contender appeared on
> > >the scene in their primary market. They *had* let it die, but now
> > >they're resurrecting it.
> > >
> > > > However, none of the solutions mentioned in these articles completely
> > > solves
> > > > Isaac's problem. In fact, Isaac only got as far as he did because he
> > mixed
> > > > html table tags with divs.
> > >
> > >And my argument is that he's attacking the problem with the wrong tools.
> > >Positioning is what he want. It's a pity IE just doesn't support it
> > >completely enough.
> > >
> > >Mind you, there's a set of JavaScript hacks called IE7, which you've
> > >probably heard of, that fixes a lot of these flaws in IE6.
> > >
> > > > However, I was unable to eliminate the vertical scroll bar. I'm not
> > even
> > > > quite sure where this is coming from. My guess is it's the window
> > chrome.
> > >
> > >Yup, it's part of the chrome. That, and the padding at the bottom of the
> > >outermost div is going to trigger it anyway.
> > >
> > >Here's that code:
> > >
> > ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
> > >         "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >
> > >Padding!
> > >I'm here because of fixed positioning!
> > >
> > >Using fixed positioning, his problem can be solved as follows:
> > >
> > ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
> > >         "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
> > >
> > >onTap Framework
> > >Home
> > ><http://affiliates.macromedia.com/b.asp?id=2549&p=go/dr_home_aff1>
> > >[]
> > >
> > >
> > >Hence, my point.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Keith Gaughan, Developer
> > >Digital Crew Ltd., Pembroke House, Pembroke Street, Cork, Ireland
> > >http://digital-crew.com/
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > >Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.2 - Release Date: 20/12/2004
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - RUWebby
http://www.ruwebby.com

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188423
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Reply via email to