Percentage Height not working

[Les Juby]

I am trying to adjust the window/table size of a website
(www.worklaw.co.za) which has made use of DIV tags with its settings
embedded in an CSS file.

The client wants its width and height to adjust according to dynamic
screen size, and I have been able to adjust the width to a percentage
value which works fine. But if I try do the same with the height it
shows some very strange results squashing the field to display about 3
lines.

The following is copied out of the css file:

.Content {position:relat ive;
left:70px;
height:388px;
width:90%;
top:15px;
overflow:auto;
scrollbar-arrow-color:navy
border-style:solid;
border-width:2px;
border-color:
black #E9E9E9 #E9E9E9 black;
padding:3;
}

I've changed the width to 90% as you can see, but that hasn't helped.
Any ideas why a percentage wouldn't work for height?

Brendon

[Spartanicus]

Gérard Talbot <ne***********@ gtalbot.org> wrote:

padding:3
is equivalent to writing
padding:0

Incorrect, "padding:3" should be ignored.

--
Spartanicus

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Gérard Talbot wrote:

This parsing error on the declaration will make CSS compliant
browsers to ignore the declaration.

CSS1 Forward-compatible parsing
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1#forwar...atible-parsing
CSS2.1 Rules for handling parsing errors
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#parsing-errors
right...
So writing:

padding:3
is equivalent to writing
padding:0

No it isn't. In a conforming browser, it's equivalent to not
writing that padding specification at all - just as you cited.

So the padding will be set to whatever value comes out of the cascade,
disregarding this particular "declaratio n".

[Robi]

Spartanicus wrote in message news:ij******** *************** *********@news. spartanicus.utv internet.ie...

Gérard Talbot wrote:

padding:3
is equivalent to writing
padding:0

Incorrect, "padding:3" should be ignored.

as should "padding:0" ...
therefore "is equivalent" should be correct...

looking at the text and links you omitted by snipping:

<<
This parsing error on the declaration will make CSS compliant
browsers to ignore the declaration.

CSS1 Forward-compatible parsing
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1#forwar...atible-parsing
CSS2.1 Rules for handling parsing errors
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#parsing-errors

So writing:

padding:3
is equivalent to writing
padding:0

from http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#parsing-errors:

* Illegal values. User agents must ignore a declaration with an illegal value. For example:

img { float: left } /* correct CSS 2.1 */
img { float: left here } /* "here" is not a value of 'float' */
img { background: "red" } /* keywords cannot be quoted */
img { border-width: 3 } /* a unit must be specified for length values */

A CSS 2.1 parser would honor the first rule and ignore the rest, as if the style sheet had been:

img { float: left }
img { }
img { }
img { }

so as Gérard wrote, the following:

div { padding: 3 }
div { padding: 0 }

parses as:

div { }
div { }
which is equivalent.

[Robi]

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote in message news:Pi******** *************** ********@ppepc5 6.ph.gla.ac.uk. ..

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Gérard Talbot wrote:

This parsing error on the declaration will make CSS compliant
browsers to ignore the declaration.

CSS1 Forward-compatible parsing
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1#forwar...atible-parsing
CSS2.1 Rules for handling parsing errors
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#parsing-errors
right...

So writing:

padding:3
is equivalent to writing
padding:0

No it isn't. In a conforming browser, it's equivalent to not
writing that padding specification at all - just as you cited.

isn't it or is it?

somebody is confused: No it isn't [equivalent]. In a conforming browser, it's equivalent to not

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ as opposed to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

please make up your mind, you're confusing others as well

[Barbara de Zoete]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 13:18:48 +0200, Robi <[e-mail] > wrote:

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote in message

No it isn't. In a conforming browser, it's equivalent to not
writing that padding specification at all - just as you cited.

isn't it or is it?

somebody is confused:

No it isn't [equivalent]. In a conforming browser, it's equivalent to not

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ as opposed to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

please make up your mind, you're confusing others as well

Learn to read.

Gérard: so it equals 'padding:0;' --> Alan: 'no it isn't'
Why? --> Because it is equivalent to _not_specifying _that_padding_a t_all.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

[Barbara de Zoete]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 13:15:12 +0200, Robi <[e-mail] > wrote:

Spartanicus wrote in message
news:ij******** *************** *********@news. spartanicus.utv internet.ie...

Gérard Talbot wrote:

padding:3
is equivalent to writing
padding:0
Incorrect, "padding:3" should be ignored.

as should "padding:0" ...

Wrong. If the default is (say) padding:.5em, and I don't want it, I can use
padding:0; to set the padding to, surprise, 0.
therefore "is equivalent" should be correct...

Cut the crap and learn to read.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

[Johannes Koch]

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

Gérard: so it equals 'padding:0;' --> Alan: 'no it isn't'
Why? --> Because it is equivalent to _not_specifying _that_padding_a t_all.

Example:

p {
padding: 1em
}
p {
padding: 3
}

Result is:
p {
padding: 1em
}
(because the second rule will be ignored) and not
p {
padding: 0
}
--
Johannes Koch
Spem in alium nunquam habui praeter in te, Deus Israel.
(Thomas Tallis, 40-part motet)

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, Barbara de Zoete wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 13:15:12 +0200, Robi <[e-mail] > wrote:

therefore "is equivalent" should be correct...

Cut the crap and learn to read.

I suspect our would-be informant might be muddled about the difference
between, on the one hand:

padding: 3;

which is invalid (missing its units specification) and required to be
ignored in its entirety (i.e *not* treated as a specification of
zero!), and, on the other hand:

padding: 0;

which is legal (a value of 0 is allowed, even without a unit - since 0
is 0 in any units) and so should not be ignored.
Be that as it may, "Robi" is well on their way to establishing
eligibility for at least one killfile around here :-}

regards

[Obvious]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 06:18:48 -0500, Robi wrote:

somebody is confused:

No it isn't [equivalent]. In a conforming browser, it's equivalent to not ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ as opposed to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Don't quote only the bits that you like, the full quote is: No it isn't. In a conforming browser, it's equivalent to not
writing that padding specification at all - just as you cited.
which has a completely different meaning to what you quoted.
please make up your mind, you're confusing others as well

No, I would say that you are confusing people by obfuscating the issue.

[Robi]

Alan J. Flavell wrote in message news:Pi******** *************** *******@ppepc56 .ph.gla.ac.uk.. .

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, Barbara de Zoete wrote:

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 13:15:12 +0200, Robi wrote:

therefore "is equivalent" should be correct...
Cut the crap and learn to read.

I suspect our would-be informant might be muddled about the difference
between, on the one hand:

padding: 3;

which is invalid (missing its units specification) and required to be
ignored in its entirety (i.e *not* treated as a specification of
zero!), and, on the other hand:

padding: 0;

which is legal (a value of 0 is allowed, even without a unit - since 0
is 0 in any units) and so should not be ignored.

please excuse my ignorance. I was indeed taking the lack of units as the
same invalid statement, which, if I may add, nobody actually cared to
point out as you did.
Be that as it may, "Robi" is well on their way to establishing
eligibility for at least one killfile around here :-}

I don't care how many "Robi is an idiot" or "Robi got no clue" posts
I get, as long as people can learn from misconceptions.

Yes, I had no clue, and if that is good for you to KF me, go ahead :)

Though now I believe to know something more, and I also understand
the reason behind it. Thanks for educating me.