On 2007-10-29, Summercool <Su************@gmail.comwrote:
On Oct 29, 3:47 am, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggswrote:
>You need an element whose auto width is shrink-to-fit. That's anything
with position: absolute or fixed, or that's floated, or display:
table-cell or table.
Not completely sure exactly what you're doing, but position: absolute
with width: auto (the default) sounds like the most appropriate.
i tried both display: table and float: left and they both worked!
is there a rule?
There is no shortage of rules. Search the CSS 2.1 specification for the
string "shrink-to-fit".
that when is it "max width" and when is it "just
shrink to fit"?
In the cases I gave (I think I got them all). I prefer to call them
"greedy auto width" and "shrink-to-fit auto width".
the display: table feels a bit weird as it is not really a table.
besides, the height seems just a little bit taller than it is...
I'm sure the height is always exactly as tall as it is [1].
http://www.0011.com/test_drag/index3.php
on IE 7.0, it is exactly the right size...
Odd, I'm sure I heard display: table doesn't work in IE. Perhaps it does
in IE7.
but on Firefox 2.0.0.8 and Safari 3 Win Beta, it is shown as a bit
taller than it has to be. (as you see the background color coming out
at the bottom).
That's descender space below the inline img. It should be there. Use
strict mode:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd">
and set those imgs to display: block.
[1] There is a story about Bertrand Russell and his friend on a boat.
Friend says, "I thought your boat was bigger than it is.". Russell
replies testily, "No, my boat is not bigger than it is".
