- From: Philip Hoyt <phoyt@mspect.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:30:26 -0400
- 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 UTC