W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2001

RE: Block-level formatting and width in Netscape 6

From: Philip Hoyt <phoyt@mspect.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:30:26 -0400
Message-ID: <A31DB186EFE2CC43B83090999C99D727FE8C@mtosrv02.mspect.com>
To: <www-style@w3.org>
The statement I made about left: 100% was incorrect and based on a
parallel that made no logical sense. I maintain that the result of the
above is useless but I guess that's not the issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: Clover Andrew [mailto:aclover@1value.com]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 9:19 AM
To: www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: Block-level formatting and width in Netscape 6


Philip Hoyt <phoyt@mspect.com> wrote:

> it starts from 100% at the left edge of the div which means that
> the div would sit just outside the visible portion of the screen
> which is inconsistent with placing of background images

They're quite different cases, though: with background-position
you're setting the position of the entire background object, whereas
with 'left' you're setting the position of the left-hand edge of
the box object; you can set the right-hand edge or the width
independently.

The idea of percentages being relative to the available width
minus the width of the object being positioned might be similar to
background-positioning when background-repeat is turned off, but
it would be inconsistent with most of the rest of CSS.

> and quite useless as far as I am concerned.

That's entirely possible - I'm not sure what effect you're trying
to achieve. Personally I've met worse problems trying to design
layouts in CSS. :-(

-- 
Andrew Clover
Technical Consultant
1VALUE.com AG
Received on Friday, 20 April 2001 11:31:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:09 GMT