W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > October 2001

RE: frames and width definitions

From: Christian Wolfgang Hujer <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:37:51 +0200
To: "Iztok Jeras" <jeras@d-d.si>, <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301c15576$345e9440$b78f9b3e@andromeda>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-html-request@w3.org [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org]On Behalf
> Of Iztok Jeras
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 5:02 PM
> To: www-html@w3.org
> Subject: frames and width definitions
> I use frames because in that case I can have an SVG animated menu always
> loaded and visible (without flickers while loading a new page).
> But I have problems with scrolling of the content. Scrolling should be
> enabled for the whole frameset an not only for the single framesets.
> So that two separated strollers for a menu and a desktop frame would not
> be needed, getting a more no frame look.
> The width definition should be reviewed too, I can not define the width
> of a frame or table or a <div>
> (140px, 100%-140px) so that the width of the menu would be fixed and the
> desktop would fill the remains of the page.
> iztok jeras

maybe auto is the width property value that gives what you desire.



see the combination:
- left:0px;   width:140px; right:auto;
- left:140px; width:auto;  right:0px;

And as Bjoern said, you'll find more precise information on what you are
looking for in the official Recommendation on CSS Level 2.

But be aware, that currently there is no browser that is capable of all
desired CSS Level 2 possibilities. Mozilla implements nearly all, Opera
most, and IE and Netscape 4.x are missing tons of CSS Level 2 features. And
Mozilla doesn't count, since it is still unofficial and beta (regardless
what Netscape say about Netscape 6.x ...).


(Please apologize for temporarily bad English, today I'm too lazy to use
Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 08:38:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:58 UTC