Which is the standard for bottom positioned background?

[typingcat]

Hello. I set a background image like the following;
body
{
background: url('back.png') repeat-x bottom;
}
See this page for example:
http://cat3.dotnet29.hostbasket.com/korean/

When the content of a page is too short to fill the entire window,
Opera(8.5) sets the background at the end of content. IE and FireFox
sets at the end of the window though. Opera says they stick to the
standards. Which is the right way? Opera or IE/FF? I love Opera but
this problem makes me to feel a little bit confused.

[Arne]

Once upon a time *t********@gmail.com* wrote:

Hello. I set a background image like the following;
body
{
background: url('back.png') repeat-x bottom;
}
See this page for example:
http://cat3.dotnet29.hostbasket.com/korean/

When the content of a page is too short to fill the entire window,
Opera(8.5) sets the background at the end of content. IE and FireFox
sets at the end of the window though. Opera says they stick to the
standards. Which is the right way? Opera or IE/FF? I love Opera but
this problem makes me to feel a little bit confused.

Try with "background-position:bottom;" abd see if it helps

--
/Arne
Now killing all top posters and posters who don't quote
* How to post: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html
* From Google: http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/
-------------------------------------------------------------

[typingcat]

Thank you for your reply. I added "background-position:bottom;" but I'm
afaid that it didn't change anything.

[kchayka]

ty*******@gmail.com wrote:

http://cat3.dotnet29.hostbasket.com/korean/

When the content of a page is too short to fill the entire window,
Opera(8.5) sets the background at the end of content.

Opera seems to be "shrink wrapping" the html element, which subsequently
shrink wraps the body. Try adding

html { margin:0; padding:0; min-height:100%; }

That should expand it to cover the viewport height. Drop the superfluous
background-position property.

BTW, the body background-color:white is being superceded by the
background shorthand property, which resets bg color back to the browser
default. My default bg color (not white) shows through. It is not
attractive.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[typingcat]

Thank you, kchayka

I tried what you have told me, but it didn't work.
I tried both
html { margin:0; padding:0; min-height:100%; } and
body { margin:0; padding:0; min-height:100%; } .
Opera is a great browser but how can I solve this problem...

[kchayka]

ty*******@gmail.com wrote:

Hey, do yourself and everyone else a favor - dump google groups for
posting to usenet and get yourself a real newsreader. If your ISP
doesn't have a decent newsserver, check out news.individual.net.

If you insist on using that abomination called gg, then please learn how
to use it. Read:
<URL:http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

This is for your own good. Failure to conform to accepted posting
practices will only get you added to killfiles everywhere, if you aren't
there already. Many people already ban all posts coming from gg.
I tried both
html { margin:0; padding:0; min-height:100%; } and
body { margin:0; padding:0; min-height:100%; } .
Opera is a great browser but how can I solve this problem...

Hmmm, it worked for me. Perhaps your Opera is reading the file from
cache instead of getting a fresh copy from the server.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[typingcat]

Hi kchayka;

I used to use Outlook Express for reading newsgroups. And my ISP
provides a server too. But the reason I use Google Groups is, it's
easier to search and check the replies to my post.

I think it's very convinient. I don't know why you so hate Google
Groups? Why do you think it's bad? I read the page you wrote. And I
still don't get why it is necessary to quote. I'm really asking. Please
tell me why people think Google Group is bad. I love Google, I use
Google everyday, so it's quite important to me.

Thank you.

kchayka wrote:

ty*******@gmail.com wrote:

Hey, do yourself and everyone else a favor - dump google groups for
posting to usenet and get yourself a real newsreader. If your ISP
doesn't have a decent newsserver, check out news.individual.net.

If you insist on using that abomination called gg, then please learn how
to use it. Read:
<URL:http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

This is for your own good. Failure to conform to accepted posting
practices will only get you added to killfiles everywhere, if you aren't
there already. Many people already ban all posts coming from gg.

I tried both
html { margin:0; padding:0; min-height:100%; } and
body { margin:0; padding:0; min-height:100%; } .
Opera is a great browser but how can I solve this problem...

Hmmm, it worked for me. Perhaps your Opera is reading the file from
cache instead of getting a fresh copy from the server.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[kchayka]

ty*******@gmail.com wrote:

Don't top-post.
<URL:http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post>
I don't know why you so hate Google
Groups? Why do you think it's bad?
For one thing, 99% of the people using gg to post to usenet don't even
bother using the service for the only thing it's really good at -
searching usenet archives. Those using gg tend to be clueless newbies
who aren't much interested in doing things The Right Way according to
accepted conventions. That's not to say all are (or that you are), but
that seems to be the trend.

Google Groups used to be good, but they took a perfectly good, usable
system and tried to make it kewl. They just made it suck instead. :(
I read the page you wrote.
I didn't write it.
And I still don't get why it is necessary to quote.

Do some reading at the link I posted above and you may become more
enlightened.

BTW, we are now off-topic for this group. If you have more questions on
the subject, search the google archives for past discussions. It's come
up plenty of times before and I don't care to rehash it myself.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

In <11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>, on
10/17/2005
at 11:08 AM, ty*******@gmail.com said:

I think it's very convinient. I don't know why you so hate Google
Groups?
For the same reason that others do; the original version was clum sy
and the new version is not only clumsy but broken.
Why do you think it's bad?
The obvious reason is that it doesn't present the original article, so
even if you attempt to manually create the attribution lin e that it
should have created automatically, the data are not present for you to
do so. At least with the old version I could request the original
article, save it as a file and then reply to it using a real news
client.
And I still don't get why it is necessary to quote.
Because otherwise your reply has no context, especially if you are
replying to a large article or to one that arrives at a news server
later than your reply does.
Please tell me why people think Google Group is bad.
Because it's broken. It doesn't support proper attribution lines,
quoting and signature blocks.
I love Google, I use Google everyday, so it's quite important to me.

Then I'd urge you to start lobbying google to fix it, because
otherwise you're going[1] to have people filtering out everything
posted from google, or even news servers dropping those articles.

[1] Assuming that it hasn't already started.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to sp******@library.lspace.org

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <43**************************@news.patriot.net>, dated
Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:38:22, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.s
tylesheets, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <sp******@library.lspace.org.invali
d> posted :

Please tell me why people think Google Group is bad.

Because it's broken. It doesn't support proper attribution lines,
quoting and signature blocks.

If you find that, when you start a News reply, Google does not provide
the previous article in quoted form, note what Keith Thompson wrote in
comp.lang.c, message ID <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org> :-
If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show
options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at
the bottom of the article headers.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
The Big-8 newsgroup management is attempting to legitimise its questionable
practices while retaining its elitist hegemony. Read <URL:news:news.groups>.

[typingcat]

I've just installed DearPark Alpha 2 (successor of FireFox), and found
that its background implementation works just like Opera. Now maybe
Opera's way is the standard?

ty*******@gmail.com wrote:

Hello. I set a background image like the following;
body
{
background: url('back.png') repeat-x bottom;
}
See this page for example:
http://cat3.dotnet29.hostbasket.com/korean/

When the content of a page is too short to fill the entire window,
Opera(8.5) sets the background at the end of content. IE and FireFox
sets at the end of the window though. Opera says they stick to the
standards. Which is the right way? Opera or IE/FF? I love Opera but
this problem makes me to feel a little bit confused.