Yehuda Katz wrote: > Sure it is. Adding clearing elements, and the ensuing additional CSS > (or extra clearing markup), makes code less readable for, in most > cases, no good reason. Since overflow: hidden or overflow: auto does > the trick, the whole issue of clearing floats becomes essentially a > non-issue, and saves extra markup.
If you say so :-) Now, how do you "half-clear" a float (parts of it hanging over the lower edge of a container, and maybe over the side-edges too) in a cross-browser reliable way by using the overflow-property? The above is not a "trick-question". I use such design-methods quite often, and the overflow-property doesn't cut it across browser-land. >>> <http://www.yehudakatz.com/CSSf-1-5-1-Spec.pdf> I'll point out that such a "specification" acts as a restriction on what can be done, and will only serve a purpose where such restrictions are accepted/acceptable/wanted. Within such a framework I guess /any/ specification is ok, but I certainly won't work under such restrictions. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
