468,140 Members | 1,441 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,140 developers. It's quick & easy.

Problem with clear:both in a list (repost with add'l info)

I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that I'm running Mozilla 1.4 on
Win 98 and my window is about 800 pixels wide. If any of that
matters.

The rest of this is what I posted a few minutes ago.

http://www.acad.sunytccc.edu/instruc...tat15/demo.htm
http://www.acad.sunytccc.edu/instruc...n/npscreen.css

The first table is floated right (class="fr"). Text does not flow
around the table, as I thought a float should do, but there is white
space below the table to the end of the document.

Then when the second floated table comes along, it too reserves
space under itself to the end of the document. The text is left in a
very narrow column.

I even tried putting in a clear:both (via <div class="clear">) at
the end of the first long list item, but it didn't help.

What am I doing wrong?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #1
7 1630
Stan Brown wrote:
I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that I'm running Mozilla 1.4
Time to update at least to 1.7 although the bug is still there.
What am I doing wrong?


Nothing. This is a Moz bug.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163110
Test case by Eric Meyer:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachme...44&action=view
It works ok if you don't use a List.

--
Gus
Jul 20 '05 #2
"Gus Richter" <gu********@netscape.net> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Stan Brown wrote:
I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that I'm running Mozilla 1.4
Time to update at least to 1.7 although the bug is still there.


Then why? What's the advantage? I'm wary of "upgrading" because when
I did it in the past the user interface was different, my extensions
stopped working, and the bugs that I cared about were still there.
What am I doing wrong?


Nothing. This is a Moz bug.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163110


Thanks for the reference. I see that this one's two years old, and
has had about a dozen duplicates entered. Sigh.
Test case by Eric Meyer:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachme...44&action=view
It works ok if you don't use a List.


Seems to be a bit more specific than that -- the problem seems to be
floating the last element of an <li>. I followed Michael Rozdoba's
suggestion to move the tables into the <li>s where they logically
belong; now Mozilla does the right thing but not Opera (and, I'm
told, not IE6 either.)

I know we've all been there, but GOLLY it's annoying working around
browser bugs, particularly since the worst one has the lion's share
of the market.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #3
Stan Brown wrote:
"Gus Richter" wrote:
Stan Brown wrote:
I'm running Mozilla 1.4


Time to update at least to 1.7 although the bug is still there.


Then why? What's the advantage? I'm wary of "upgrading" because
when I did it in the past the user interface was different, my
extensions stopped working, and the bugs that I cared about were
still there.


That seems reasonable, and Moz 1.4 was a good release. I upgraded by
necessity -- after my hard drive crashed. ;-) If you're interested
in trying out the new one, you can always use Firefox. Caveat:
although Firefox is now my default browser, I wish they hadn't taken
away so many of the options/menus. For a power user, Firefox can be
frustrating.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #4
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 23:15:55 -0400, Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
"Gus Richter" <gu********@netscape.net> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Stan Brown wrote:
I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that I'm running Mozilla 1.4


Time to update at least to 1.7 although the bug is still there.


Then why? What's the advantage? I'm wary of "upgrading" because when
I did it in the past the user interface was different, my extensions
stopped working, and the bugs that I cared about were still there.


I hear ya. That's why I still use NN4. ;)
Jul 20 '05 #5
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
ou can always use Firefox. Caveat:
although Firefox is now my default browser, I wish they hadn't taken
away so many of the options/menus. For a power user, Firefox can be
frustrating.


That's exactly how I reacted when I tried it. The latest thing is
that they took away Profile Manager because it's "not a user
feature", so now users have to select profiles by command-line
options. Yeah, _that's_ user friendly!

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #6
Brian wrote:
Caveat: although Firefox is now my default browser, I wish they
hadn't taken away so many of the options/menus. For a power user,
Firefox can be frustrating.


Agreed, although using url about:config is rather more friendly than
manually editing config files. Though, one still does have to know what
the option names refer to & what valid values are.

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t
Jul 20 '05 #7
Michael Rozdoba wrote:
Brian wrote:
Caveat: although Firefox is now my default browser, I wish they
hadn't taken away so many of the options/menus. For a power user,
Firefox can be frustrating.


Agreed, although using url about:config is rather more friendly than
manually editing config files. Though, one still does have to know
what the option names refer to & what valid values are.


Even with that, some options are gone. I can no longer find where to
change the location of the cache on the disk in 0.9.1. (Putting in the
system directory only makes sense in disk sharing environments, where
quotas are important. For a single user, it's better to put the cache in
a place where it won't be backed up with Moz config stuff.)

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #8

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

6 posts views Thread by Stan Brown | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by Will Hartung | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by David Trimboli | last post: by
5 posts views Thread by rickjamesb | last post: by
27 posts views Thread by didacticone | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.