I'm wondering why my use of relative positioning in a fairly simple pure CSS
layout is being rendered differently by different browsers. Here's my test
page: http://www.hwaters.com/testing/chs/about.htm.
Basically I've got things where it's fine in IE6, NN7, and Mozilla 1.7 Win
but not in Firefox 0.9.3. The troublesome element is the content area,
defined as a div called "content_window." In Firefox it's positioned quite a
bit lower in the viewport than it should be.
Here's the relevant CSS:
/*rules for the content window*/
#content_window {
position: relative;
width:606px;
height: 475px;
padding: 20px;
background: #fff
url(graphics/shared/translucent_background.jpg)
no-repeat scroll top left;
/*rules to position content window properly in IE6*/
top:-81px;
left: 164px;
}
html>body div#content_window {
/*Correct values for NN7 Win*/
top: -100px;
left: 164px;
}
Have I got completely the wrong approach here? The goal is to have the
bottom of the content area coincide with the bottom of the containing div
called "container_box" which has the background photo.
Thanks for any help.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Chris Rizzo
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 10:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [WSG] doctypes, quirks/standards mode and positioning
>
>
>
> I've settled with using the XHTML Transitional doctype, but
> that's only for
> new documents. For your older documents which don't have correct syntax, I
> agree with the other posts. I wouldn't use a doctype at all and let the
> browser go into quirks mode and do it's best to render. Slapping an XHTML
> doctype on those documents won't make them more forward compatible, only
> fixing the HTML would. It could actually make those documents less
> compatible because you are in essence lying to the browser about the
> content, and then hoping the browser doesn't mess up the rendering.
>
> ... under what cases should one use
> an XHTML doctype - practically speaking ...
>
> I would say simply, you should use XHTML doctype if you actually
> have valid
> XHTML code in your document.
>
> With that said here's some resources I find helpful, if you'd like to dig
> more.
>
> http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/doctype.html
> http://www.quirksmode.org/about/quirksmode.html
> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/betterliving/
> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/doctype/
> http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?DOCTYPE
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Nando
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 8:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [WSG] doctypes, quirks/standards mode and positioning
>
> I'll be reworking the markup and the layout approach they've used ...
> it's just that i anticipate they'll have a reason for using the
> doctype ... cuz it doesn't jump up there by itself, that i'll need to
> intelligently and authoritively discuss with them. Much of the code is
> actually generated out of a Struts jsp app. So i'm looking for
> resources and experienced opinions ... under what cases should one use
> an XHTML doctype - practically speaking ...
>
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:40:43 +0100, Patrick H. Lauke
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Neerav wrote:
> >
> > > so go for html 4 transitional validation if the clients tables will
> > > always be invalid
> >
> > If you know for sure that the markup is going to be invalid, why bother
> > with a doctype at all? It's a bit like putting a "may contain nuts"
> > sticker on a bag of peanuts...
> >
> > Patrick H. Lauke
> > _____________________________________________________
> > re.dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
> > [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
> > www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
> > http://redux.deviantart.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ******************************************************
> > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> >
> > Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
> > Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
> > To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004
> >
> > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> > ******************************************************
> >
> >
> ******************************************************
> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
> Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
> To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004
>
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> ******************************************************
>
>
>
> ******************************************************
> The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
> Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
> To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004
>
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> ******************************************************
>
>
>
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
