> 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.
I think we're referring to two separate behaviors here. I was referring to sizing relative to available area as opposed to the containing block. Specifically, I was referring to its absence in standards mode, which I think is unfortunate. > 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 I see what you're saying. However, I interpreted Isaac's original post as blowing off steam. In other words, I think he was lamenting the fact that CSS (at any level) does not support sizing relative to the available content area. Isaac, let me know if I misunderstood this. My question to you is, all other things being equal, do you really think that fixed positioning is a better way to solve this problem than relative sizing? One of the great things about HTML is that elements are allowed to flow. Users can change their default font and size, disable images, etc., and the page just adapts. Fixed positioning in general -- and your proposed solution specifically -- break this very badly. As a developer, I now have to know the exact pixel size of every element on the page and position objects off the top/bottom/left/right accordingly. Worse, I have to know these at design time as opposed to runtime. I just don't understand how this can be considered an improvement? > But what he's trying to do *is* positioning, not sizing. Correction, what he's trying to accomplish is sizing relative to the available content area. The only way to approximate it in CSS 2 compliant browsers is to use fixed positioning. To my knowledge, there is no way to accomplish it in CSS 1 compliant browsers (sans-html formatting). > 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. Uhg. Yes it does. Internet Explorer 6 supports CSS level 1 fixed positioning. Earlier versions of IE also supported it, albeit with the broken box model. > Try > the code below in IE6, Firefox, Opera, and any other browsers you can > lay your hands on if you don't believe me. You really need to qualify some of your statements. The code you posted uses CSS level 2 fixed positioning. Specifically, the "bottom" and "right" properties are part of the level 2 spec. Internet Explorer does not support CSS level 2: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnie60/html /cssenhancements.asp "Building on top of the functionality of previous versions, Internet Explorer 6 now provides full support for CSS Level 1" > 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. Really? I've never seen anything official from Microsoft that said they were discontinuing development of Internet Explorer. All the official stuff I've seen simply said that they were not going to continue to develop Internet Explorer as a separate product. That said, the Internet Explorer team has apparently been reformed as an entity separate from the Windows team. There is some talk about an Internet Explorer 7 separate from the operating system. However, I haven't seen this announced officially. If it's true, I would guess that this is in response to competition from Firefox et al. > 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. Fair enough, and I agree that it's a shame that Internet Explorer 6 does not support CSS level 2. The standard is old enough that support for it could have made it into Internet Explorer 6. Nevertheless, since Internet Explorer is still the dominant browser, your solution isn't really practical. For what it's worth, I agree that fixed positioning is the way to accomplish what he's trying to accomplish in CSS 2 compliant browsers. It's unfortunately, but it's true. Ben Rogers http://www.c4.net v.508.240.0051 f.508.240.0057 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188447 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
