- From: John Buell <dadaist@peak.org>
- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 17:22:04 -0600
- To: "James Aylard" <jaylard@pixelwright.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
Just out of curiosity, is this true of the MSIE 5.x installed by default with Mac OS 9.1 and 9.2.x AND the newer 5.1 (which originally was OS X only, but a 9.x version was released not too long ago)? -John (whose iBook is out for repair, or he'd figure this out for himself in a hurry :P ). ----- Original Message ----- > Some discussion and testing on the CSS-Discuss list [1] has > raised a question about how IE 5.x on the Macintosh renders 100% heights > under the following conditions: > > * The style sheet specifies 100% height for the html and body elements > * A div is placed within the html document, whose height is also set to > 100% > * In order to better see the div and to understand what is happening, a > fixed width (say, 200px) is applied, as is a background color (say, > #cccccc) > > For example: > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> > <html> > <head> > <title>Div with 100% Height</title> > <style type="text/css"> > html, body { > height: 100% ; > } > div { > height: 100% ; > width: 200px ; > background-color: #cccccc ; > } > </style> > </head> > <body> > <div>This should have a height of 100%</div> > </body> > </html> > > In most browsers on which this was tested (at least IE 6/Win32, > Mozilla 0.9.8, and Netscape 6.2.1), the div remains at a fixed height of > 100% of the viewport (with some space for the body element's default > margin/padding). In IE 5/5.1 for the Macintosh, on the other hand, the > height of the div is precisely proportional (to the exact pixel) to the > _width_ of the viewport. As the browser window is resized horizontally, > the div's height grows or shrinks accordingly. > I am unaware of anything in the CSS 2 spec that would dictate > this behavior, and am tempted to think it a bug. Can anyone -- > especially someone from the IE 5/Mac team -- explain this behavior? > Thanks. > > James Aylard > > 1. http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/css-discuss, > > http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/private/css-discuss/2002-February/002676 > .html >
Received on Sunday, 3 March 2002 18:23:54 UTC