Relative box positioning: IE vs FF problem..

[Griff]

Hi

Sorry no screen shots or links...I want to achieve the following visual
effect:

I want three boxes to appear on screen, all within a parent box (so 4
in total).

Concerning the three inner boxes, I want them to appear in a two column
format. One box in the left hand column that will contain an image and
the two other boxes stacked one above the other in the right hand
column that will contain text.

Using relative positioning, I can achieve what I want for the three
internal boxes and this works in Internet Explorer (IE) and in FireFox
(FF).

However, when I add the parent box it "correctly" surrounds the
daughter boxes in IE, but appears as a thin strip in FF (i.e. the
daughter boxes hang out of the bottom of this box).

I can't use absolute positioning because I don't know how much text
these will contain, or how big the image will be.

The HTML text is simply three <div/elements embedded within a parent
<div/>.

Any help would be most appreciated in this.

Thanks

Griff

[boclair]

Rik wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:

>Griff wrote:

>>I want three boxes to appear on screen, all within a parent box (so 4
in total).

Go and read brainjar.com and their article on "css positioning"

(Floats are _meant_ to hang out of the bottom of things, unless you
tell them not to. IE gets things wrong again).

Or check http://www.quirksmode.org/css/clearing.html for a nice compact
decription/solution.

I think the quirksmode suggestions is suspect.

There could be no objection to the "old" method of clearing the floats
before closing the containing div but the suggestion to use the overflow
property hack is not a good one in my opinion.

Firefox, for one, treats overflow:hidden (and overflow:visibl e) as would
be expected; without the containing div having a set or implied height,
its contents cannot be viewed.

As for overflow:auto, who's to know if this will result in some browser
drawing scroll bars.

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visufx...opdef-overflow

Louise

[Rik]

boclair wrote:

Rik wrote:

>Andy Dingley wrote:

>>Griff wrote:

I want three boxes to appear on screen, all within a parent box
(so 4 in total).
Go and read brainjar.com and their article on "css positioning"

(Floats are _meant_ to hang out of the bottom of things, unless you
tell them not to. IE gets things wrong again).

Or check http://www.quirksmode.org/css/clearing.html for a nice
compact decription/solution.

I think the quirksmode suggestions is suspect.

Not ideal by any means, but workable.

There could be no objection to the "old" method of clearing the floats
before closing the containing div but the suggestion to use the
overflow property hack is not a good one in my opinion.

Firefox, for one, treats overflow:hidden (and overflow:visibl e) as
would be expected; without the containing div having a set or implied
height, its contents cannot be viewed.

As for overflow:auto, who's to know if this will result in some
browser drawing scroll bars.

Well, you as the deisgner usually know. It's a method with several prerequisites
(?). I'll only use it on a container with set by either the container itself or
it's parents, or one set dimension which I know is not going to overflow in that
dimension due to content-dimensions, which I'm in control of.

On a completely unpredictable system (CMS's for third parties etc.), it isn't a
true solution, that's right. If only you yourself will be working on it it will
save you a lot of headache/HTML-clutter.

Grtz,
--
Rik Wasmus

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2006-08-17, Rik wrote:

boclair wrote:

>>
As for overflow:auto, who's to know if this will result in some
browser drawing scroll bars.

Well, you as the deisgner usually know.

You do not know; you *cannot* know.

You don't know the size of my browser window, or my font size. You
are making an assumption that is responsible for vast numbers of
badly rendered pages on the WWW.

It's a method with several prerequisites (?). I'll only use it on a
container with set by either the container itself or it's parents,
or one set dimension which I know is not going to overflow in that
dimension due to content-dimensions, which I'm in control of.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell. org>
=============== =============== =============== =============== =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

[Andy Dingley]

boclair wrote:

I think the quirksmode suggestions is suspect.

That's because of your calm and generous nature.

I think it's a fecking evil bogosity and would have nothing at all to
do with the perverse idea.