- From: ValerieGSharp <ValerieGSharp@netscapeonline.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:33:09 +0100
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To quote CSS2: "10.6.4 Absolutely positioned, non-replaced elements For absolutely positioned elements, the vertical dimensions must satisfy this constraint: 'top' + 'margin-top' + 'border-top-width' + 'padding-top' + 'height' + 'padding-bottom' + 'border-bottom-width' + 'margin-bottom' + 'bottom' = height of containing block" and as part of the solution: "2.If both 'height' and 'bottom' are 'auto', replace 'bottom' with 0." So the element is extended to the bottom of the containing block. Is there a sound reason for this? It seems that, where height is 'auto', all other elements go by the height (intrinsic or otherwise) of the contents. Why should absolutely positioned elements be different? A height of 100% (i.e. height of containing block) can always be set explicitly, if that is so desired. But currently there is no way to create an absolutely positioned element which is just large enough for its contents, when the size of the contents cannot be determined absolutely by the author, but only by the user agent when the contents are rendered. -- Regards, Val Sharp - Edinburgh
Received on Wednesday, 9 August 2000 13:18:41 UTC