RE: Block-level formatting and width in Netscape 6

>> position: absolute; left: 100% also behaves differently from how
>> I would expect.

>I'm not sure if the way Mozilla(*) draws the content of such a box
>but not its background is correct, but the positioning seems OK.

>(See also the erratum for section 9.3.2; the original spec would
>make things far more confusing if followed to the letter.)

>How would you expect, then?

>(* or at least, the last nightly I downloaded.)

Sorry, that is not what I was referring to, I meant that 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 and quite useless as far as I am concerned.


>> Compare this to the behaviour of left: 100% in background images
>> where the 100% is measured from the right edge

>I suspect you mean 'background-position'; it's an unrelated use
>of percentages (there's a lot of that in CSS, eh?) which doesn't
>use 'left' or 'right'. I suppose it looks similar if you set
>'background-repeat: no-repeat', but it isn't really. :-)

>> Similar techniques behave in a much more useful manner in
>> css-free html (<table width="100%"> for example).

>I do agree that the CSS way is somewhat less convenient,
>because it makes it difficult to mix percentages and inflexible
>units together in the box model (short of using nested elements,
>which is a bit disappointing for content-style-separation
>enthusiasts).

right, exactly what I mean.

>Er... HTML's table borders were damnably ugly, though, eh?

and that too, but when the old HTML hacks are more practical and as long
as they continue to exist (presumably forever), I for one will continue
to use them.

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2001 14:08:52 UTC