W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 1999

Uselessness of fixed positioning due to inadequacy of height:, and the fix

From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 08:30:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <19991101163024.18473.rocketmail@web901.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
The CSS spec gives an example for fixed positioning:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN">
<HTML>
  <HEAD>
    <TITLE>A frame document with CSS2</TITLE>
    <STYLE type="text/css">
      BODY { height: 8.5in } /* Required for
percentage heights below */
      #header {
        position: fixed;
        width: 100%;
        height: 15%;
        top: 0;
        right: 0;
        bottom: auto;
        left: 0;
      }
      #sidebar {
        position: fixed;
        width: 10em;
        height: auto;
        top: 15%;
        right: auto;
        bottom: 100px;
        left: 0;
      }
      #main {
        position: fixed;
        width: auto;
        height: auto;
        top: 15%;
        right: 0;
        bottom: 100px;
        left: 10em;
      }
      #footer {
        position: fixed;
        width: 100%;
        height: 100px;
        top: auto;
        right: 0;
        bottom: 0;
        left: 0;
      }
    </STYLE>
  </HEAD>
  <BODY>
    <DIV id="header"> ...  </DIV>
    <DIV id="sidebar"> ...  </DIV>
    <DIV id="main"> ...  </DIV>
    <DIV id="footer"> ...  </DIV>
  </BODY>
</HTML>

How is anyone expected to use fixed positioning when
you have to specify the height of the initial
containing block.

This deficiency makes fixed positioning entirely
unusable for this kind of design.

However, the simple addition of the keyword 'viewport'
to height solves all the problems. Thus height: viewport.

=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Received on Monday, 1 November 1999 11:20:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:01 GMT