Correction on this. I had a mental lapse between fixed and absolute positioning. CSS level 1 did not support fixed positioning at all.
Ben Rogers http://www.c4.net v.508.240.0051 f.508.240.0057 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Rogers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 2:30 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: css - height 100% - i'd like to kill the crack-addicts who > wrote the w3c box model > > > 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 Silver Sponsor - RUWebby http://www.ruwebby.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188448 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
