Wow, thanks for all the help John, I know I sound like a broken record but I really do appreciate it!!! :)
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:52 PM, John Snippe <j...@snippe.ca> wrote: > On 2013-07-18, at 7:26 PM, Micky Hulse wrote: >> That would probably work, but I'm trying to avoid setting widths on >> parent elements. I just want the body/viewport to be the only parent >> the <figure>. Sorry that I did not specify that before. > OK... getting closer here ;) > http://www.snippe.ca/tests/hulse.html Ahh, now that's interesting. I think I see what you're doing there with the 100% width on the image. That's a good tactic! My only concern is, if the image is inherently 400px wide, would the 100% width make it scale up proportionally to the parent container? I could maybe live with that, but optimally I'd not want to scale these images past their inherent sizes. I know, my requirements might seem odd to most people (i.e no parent width). :( Anyway, thanks for the ideas! As soon as I get home from work I'll play around with your tips and post back my results to this thread. :) Much appreciated John!!! Cheers, Micky ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] 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/
