Bill Moseley wrote: >> <http://www.gunlaug.no/tos/moa_31.html> > > Ah, that makes more sense. Not sure I understand when the height > expression is needed, though.
IE6 can't position opposite edges of an element, so a height-calculation is needed for that, and older, IE/win versions to get the bottom of the scrollable containers to end up in the right place. See... <http://www.alistapart.com/articles/conflictingabsolutepositions> ...for more on that problem and solutions. I adapted my own, mode-independent, "element fixed to bottom of viewport" expression from this article... <http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_15.html> ...to extract the height, but it's otherwise as in the ALA article. >> ...but there are some serious weaknesses in containing stuff this >> way. > > Anything specific? I only tried in a few browsers and it looks good. > beats the five or six frames that were used before for the same > layout. > > thanks very much for helping! When jumping between in-page links the back button may not work as intended when overflow is controlled this way. This seems to only be a problem in some IE versions when "frame-like" solutions like this are used, and I have not done any testing for the solution I presented. It may work just fine :-) regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
