470,619 Members | 2,033 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 470,619 developers. It's quick & easy.

Layer at bottom

Hi

I want to create a layer that 100% wide, 200 px high and stays at the
bottom of the screen, even when the page is scrolled, how do I do this?
I have seen it on websites but can't find any example code

Brian

Jul 23 '05 #1
28 1991
Brian wrote:
Hi

I want to create a layer that 100% wide, 200 px high and stays at the
bottom of the screen, even when the page is scrolled, how do I do this?
I have seen it on websites but can't find any example code

Brian


you can use CSS:
position: fixed;
Jul 23 '05 #2
Hi

Could you give me an example of the code to do that?
I can't seem to get it to work :)

Thanks

Brian
"bmgz" <bm***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d9**********@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Brian wrote:
Hi

I want to create a layer that 100% wide, 200 px high and stays at the
bottom of the screen, even when the page is scrolled, how do I do this?
I have seen it on websites but can't find any example code

Brian


you can use CSS:
position: fixed;

Jul 23 '05 #3
Brian wrote:
Hi

Could you give me an example of the code to do that?
I can't seem to get it to work :)

Thanks

Brian
"bmgz" <bm***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d9**********@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Brian wrote:
Hi

I want to create a layer that 100% wide, 200 px high and stays at the
bottom of the screen, even when the page is scrolled, how do I do this?
I have seen it on websites but can't find any example code

Brian


you can use CSS:
position: fixed;


Please don't top-post.

position: fixed doesn't work in iewin. See here:

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/fixedPosition.html

Don't forget to specify a DOCTYPE:

http://www.alistapart.com/stories/doctype/

Jul 23 '05 #4
Brian <no*@given.com> wrote:
Could you give me an example of the code to do that?
Could you stop abusing domains (in this case that of Given Imaging
Ltd, Israel) [1], post to a group dealing with Web authoring ...
[...]
"bmgz" <bm***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d9**********@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
[...]


.... and stop top-posting? <http://jibbering.com/faq/>

And no, that is not a request.
PointedEars
___________
[1] see also <http://www.home.ntl.com/page/userpolicy>
Jul 23 '05 #5
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Brian <no*@given.com> wrote:

Could you give me an example of the code to do that?

Could you stop abusing domains (in this case that of Given Imaging
Ltd, Israel) [1], post to a group dealing with Web authoring ...


Every time it seems that you might be emerging from puberty, you spout
off with some garbage like that. It is obvious to anyone that has any
common sense at all what the address is intended to imply. If it fails
to be obvious to you, you need to find another group.
[...]
"bmgz" <bm***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d9**********@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
[...]

.... and stop top-posting? <http://jibbering.com/faq/>

And no, that is not a request.


Yes it was, you just fail to realize that it was.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Jul 23 '05 #6
Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.com> writes:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Brian <no*@given.com> wrote: Could you stop abusing domains (in this case that of Given Imaging
Ltd, Israel) [1], post to a group dealing with Web authoring ...
It is obvious to anyone that has any common sense at all what the
address is intended to imply. If it fails to be obvious to you, you
need to find another group.


It's not about it being obviously not his own address, it's it being
somebody else's. Should a harvester find the address, it is the
administrator at given.com that must handle the spam, not Brian.

It's simple curtesy *not* to use other people's domains. After all,
Brian is probably not affiliated with Fiven Imaging, Ltd, so he
shouldn't be appearing to be.

If anyone wants an invalid address, use so*******@something.invalid.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
Jul 23 '05 #7
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
[snipped because of full ACK]
If anyone wants an invalid address, use so*******@something.invalid.


Certainly not.

The technical aspect is:

It is a violation of Internet standards, particularly RFC 1036 (Standard
for interchange of USENET messages), and RFC 2822 (Internet Message
Format), to which it refers. The `.invalid' top-level domain (TLD) is
not to be used for e-mail in public (RFC 2606: Reserved Top Level DNS
Names). Bottom line: "A mailbox receives mail." (RFC 2822, 3.4.)

See <http://www.rfc-editor.org/>.
The social aspect is:

Social thinking, reasonable people manage to handle the spam that they
are receiving (by filters); and fight spammers actively (by complaints,
e.g. to admins of open relays) instead of burdening others (i.e. those
who seek to use e-mail as intended, as an important means of non-public
communication, and mail server administrators, of course) with the
consequences of their own (the spam-receivers') incompetence.
Bottom line: Forging addresses helps spammers.

See e.g. <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>
PointedEars
Jul 23 '05 #8
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 19:31:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Social thinking, reasonable people manage to handle the spam that they
are receiving (by filters); and fight spammers actively (by complaints,
e.g. to admins of open relays)
Yea, that seems to be working.
instead of burdening others (i.e. those who seek to use e-mail as
intended, as an important means of non-public communication, and mail
server administrators, of course) with the consequences of their own
(the spam-receivers') incompetence. Bottom line: Forging addresses helps
spammers.

See e.g. <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>


Sorry but anyone who equates address mangling with terrorism is socially
irresponsible and should not be considered an authority on social
responsibility.
--
"Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed."
Benjamin Franklin (I didn't know he was a Buddhist)

Jul 23 '05 #9
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
The social aspect is:

Social thinking, reasonable people manage to handle the spam that they
are receiving (by filters); and fight spammers actively (by complaints,
e.g. to admins of open relays) instead of burdening others [...]


I should add that there are also means available to fight spammers
effectively passively. Search the Web for "tarpit" (or teergrube)
and "honeypot".
PointedEars
Jul 23 '05 #10
Ivan Marsh wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 19:31:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
See e.g. <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>


Sorry but anyone who equates address mangling with terrorism is socially
irresponsible and should not be considered an authority on social
responsibility.


You should read it again, more carefully. It is spamming that is compared
to terrorism. The spammer is the considered the terrorist of the net, of
course not those the manglers who try to fight him but unintentionally help
him.
PointedEars
Jul 23 '05 #11
Ivan Marsh wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 19:31:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
See e.g. <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>


Sorry but anyone who equates address mangling with terrorism is socially
irresponsible and should not be considered an authority on social
responsibility.


You should read it again, more carefully. It is spamming that is compared
to terrorism. The spammer is considered the terrorist of the net, of course
not the address manglers who try to fight him but unintentionally help him.
PointedEars
Jul 23 '05 #12
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 19:52:06 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ivan Marsh wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 19:31:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
See e.g. <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>


Sorry but anyone who equates address mangling with terrorism is socially
irresponsible and should not be considered an authority on social
responsibility.


You should read it again, more carefully. It is spamming that is compared
to terrorism. The spammer is the considered the terrorist of the net, of
course not those the manglers who try to fight him but unintentionally help
him.


Does spam make you fear for your life?

--
"Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed."
Benjamin Franklin (I didn't know he was a Buddhist)

Jul 23 '05 #13
Ivan Marsh wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 19:52:06 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ivan Marsh wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 19:31:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
See e.g. <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>
Sorry but anyone who equates address mangling with terrorism is socially
irresponsible and should not be considered an authority on social
responsibility.

You should read it again, more carefully. It is spamming that is
compared to terrorism. The spammer is the considered the terrorist of
the net, of course not those the manglers who try to fight him but
unintentionally help him.


Does spam make you fear for your life?


No, but for its equivalent within the borders of the analogy. Sorry that
you don't understand that. You should at least try to get the bottom line
of the article. But that is off-topic here, so please continue discussion
about it elsewhere.
PointedEars
Jul 23 '05 #14
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:48:25 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ivan Marsh wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 19:52:06 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ivan Marsh wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 19:31:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> See e.g. <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>
Sorry but anyone who equates address mangling with terrorism is
socially irresponsible and should not be considered an authority on
social responsibility.
You should read it again, more carefully. It is spamming that is
compared to terrorism. The spammer is the considered the terrorist of
the net, of course not those the manglers who try to fight him but
unintentionally help him.


Does spam make you fear for your life?


No, but for its equivalent within the borders of the analogy. Sorry
that you don't understand that. You should at least try to get the
bottom line of the article. But that is off-topic here, so please
continue discussion about it elsewhere.


Don't tell me what I don't understand you stupid assfuck!

There, now the conversation can end smartass.

--
"Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed."
Benjamin Franklin (I didn't know he was a Buddhist)

Jul 23 '05 #15
Ivan Marsh <an*****@you.now> wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ahh, I should have noticed this earlier.
[...]
Don't tell me what I don't understand
Yet I have to as you don't appear to notice anything anymore.
you stupid assfuck!
Sweet.
There, now the conversation can end [...]


Yes, indeed.

| X-Complaints-To: ab***@binc.net

[x] done
PointedEars
Jul 23 '05 #16
First off You only need half a brain to work out what I meant,
if it bothered you that much then all you had to do was point out
that given.com was a real address, my reply would have been sorry
and I would have changed it as I have. I don't know that given.com
was real, you guys have spent way to much time on this, when all
you had to do was point it out instead of throwing your toys
out the pram and bitching at each other, and the best of all I still
didn't get the answer I was looking for !

Randy, thanks for your comments :)

Brian
Jul 23 '05 #17
Brian wrote:
First off You only need half a brain to work out what I meant,
if it bothered you that much then all you had to do was point out
that given.com was a real address, my reply would have been sorry
and I would have changed it as I have.
You changed it to something less annoying for the owner of the domain,
but same annoying to readers and still standards-violating:

| Verifying <a@b.c>...
| Mail exchanger(s) for b.com: none.
| A record for b.c:
| None, thus <a@b.c> is definitely not an e-mail address (no MX).
I don't know that given.com was real,
It does not matter if the domain already exists. As I have already pointed
out, all *addresses* provided have to be existing, and the domain(s) used
has/have to be yours or you need explicit permission from the owner to use
it.
you guys have spent way to much time on this [...] and the best
of all I still didn't get the answer I was looking for !


This is not a (paid) support forum, but a public discussion group!
Go away.
PointedEars
--
http://members.ud.com/download/gold/
http://folding.stanford.edu/
http://alien.de/seti/
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
Jul 23 '05 #18
1) Lots of people don't put their real email address up as
they don't want Spam. If spammer didn't go round looking for
email address on newsgroups then we wouldn't have to do it.
So you should be complaining about the spammers, I, and lots
of others would not put up my real addressee for this reason, but
is doen't stop us from using newsgroups.

2) Newsgroups are set up for 2 things, one as you say to discussion
a giving topic, and 2 to help others that don not understand the given
topic or need help. This is called a community, a gathering of people
that are nice and helpful, and air thier views and points

3) I unlike you, I will continue to help others in other newsgroups who are
asking for help to solve a problem, once again it's called being nice.
If I spot a problem or note that a user is doing something wrong that they
may not be aware of then I would politely point it out, not jump on them

4) You may think you are perfect and never make mistakes and have
the right to 'boss' others about who make who do. A polity reply has
a lot more effect than pissing everybody off because you think you are
better than them.

And as for the 'Go Away' comment, you wish you had that power
give you some sort of meaning in life

So I'm going to leave you and your soap box to get on with it

Brian

Jul 23 '05 #19
Brian wrote:
1) Lots of people don't put their real email address up as they
don't want Spam. [more whining about his own incompetence]
So I'm going to leave you and your soap box to get on with it


Congratulations, you have just come out as being deliberately antisocial.

<news:17****************@PointedEars.de>

Fortunately, there are means against such behavior:

,-<http://www.home.ntl.com/page/userpolicy>
|
| 2. General Use
| [...]
|
| Nobody may use the Services, either directly or indirectly:
| [...]
| iii. in breach of any instructions we have given you under the
| Agreement; [...]

,-<http://www.home.ntl.com/content/ebiz/ntlhome/page/col4listsservices/b3455_tc_4p.pdf>
|
| Residential customer service agreement
| Terms and Conditions.
|
| [...]
| 17.1 Nobody may use the Services:
| (i) to send a message or communication which is offensive, abusive,
| indecent, obscene, a nuisance or hoax;
| [...]

,-<whois 81.101.29.216>
| [...]
| remarks: For abuse notifications please -
| remarks: file an online case @ http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport

[x] done

*PLONK*
PointedEars
Jul 23 '05 #20
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> writes:
It does not matter if the domain already exists. As I have already pointed
out, all *addresses* provided have to be existing,
I think life has moved on, and left that rule behind. Or rather, spam
is now a larger problem than address munging, and I'd rather address
the bigger problem first than follow protocols from back when spam
was not a problem.

I wouldn't mind posting on Usenet with no e-mail contant address
(there are probably even people out there who doesn't even have an
e-mail address). If the format does not allow it, I'll also accept
using an invalid address. I don't, but that's because the address
I use is already spammed flat, so it won't make any difference.

I once made the mistake of posting using Google Groups, and it
automagically used one of my GMail accounts. I cancelled the message
immediately, but the damage was done. That account now gets spam
addressed directly to it. If prior experience is a guide, the spam
will increase to the point where I have to abandon that address too.

It is, by now, common usage to have invalid e-mail addresses in
Usenet postings, munged or just plain wrong. It is what new users
are adviced to do by their ISP's security guides. And, in this
day and age, it's probably even the smart thing to do. Trying to
fight that, singlehandedly, is not going to do much good, even
if done diplomatically (otherwise it's doomed to do nothing but
incise people).
and the domain(s) used has/have to be yours or you need explicit
permission from the owner to use it.
Absolutely. If munging an addresss, don't fiddle with the domain name.
If writing an invalid address, make it invalid, not just not yours.

This is not a (paid) support forum, but a public discussion group!
Go away.


Politeness is free, and makes advice go over so much better :)
Remember, when you try to communicate, what you say is no more
important than how it is received, and making people defensive
is a sure way to make them not be receptive.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
Jul 23 '05 #21
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Brian wrote:
First off You only need half a brain to work out what I meant,
if it bothered you that much then all you had to do was point out
that given.com was a real address, my reply would have been sorry
and I would have changed it as I have.


You changed it to something less annoying for the owner of the domain,
but same annoying to readers and still standards-violating:


I hate to butt in where I really don't belong-- I'm still reading up on
USENET and NNTP-related standards-- but which standard does this
violate?

i.e. RFC850 or RFC1036 or something like that?

Jul 23 '05 #22
Christopher J. Hahn wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Brian wrote:
First off You only need half a brain to work out what I meant,
if it bothered you that much then all you had to do was point out
that given.com was a real address, my reply would have been sorry
and I would have changed it as I have.


You changed it to something less annoying for the owner of the domain,
but same annoying to readers and still standards-violating:


I hate to butt in where I really don't belong-- I'm still reading up on
USENET and NNTP-related standards-- but which standard does this
violate?

i.e. RFC850 or RFC1036 or something like that?


Well, that's too much like a red herring. Those two aren't standards,
so I shouldn't suggest them as such.

I was wondering which standard it violates, not which non-standard.

Sorry for that.

Jul 23 '05 #23
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen schrieb:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Po*********@web.de> writes:
It does not matter if the domain already exists. As I have
already pointed out, all *addresses* provided have to be existing,


I think life has moved on, and left that rule behind. Or rather, spam
is now a larger problem than address munging, and I'd rather address
the bigger problem first than follow protocols from back when spam
was not a problem.

I wouldn't mind posting on Usenet with no e-mail contant address
(there are probably even people out there who doesn't even have an
e-mail address). [...]


That is antisocial behavior, too -- setting one's own good above the
good of the others --, yet it hits different and probably more people.
Not using mail addresses forces flame wars and other off-topic
discussions -- and I don't mean primarily discussions about nonexistant
or abusive From/Reply addresses -- on the newsgroups as people cannot
(more calmly) clear up their differences and misunderstandings in
private; not astonishingly, this is quite visible in this newsgroup.
It also hinders or prevents that people get know each other better which
can lead to nice meetings/parties of regulars in RL and stuff like that
(yes, that happens in de.ALL where address "munging" is deprecated by
many [most?] regulars). Usenet is and has been both public newsgroup
and private e-mail, to hinder or prevent one part is/can be considered
harmful to all participants. People who don't have an e-mail address
should not (and, according to the standard which made this communication
medium possible in the first place and allows to keep it running, MUST
NOT) participate *actively* in Usenet (readers are always welcome); but
then, anyone who is attracted by Usenet most certainly has one or more
e-mail addresses.
and the domain(s) used has/have to be yours or you need explicit
permission from the owner to use it.


Absolutely. If munging an addresss, don't fiddle with the domain
name. If writing an invalid address, make it invalid, not just not
yours.


Never ever "mung an address". A string that does not refer to a
mailbox, which at least has to *receive* mail (social behavior would
require at least one given mailbox to be checked for mails by the
owner), is not an e-mail address at all. Instead, learn to manage
your mailboxes (using a strictly filtered, yet not unread, spammer
trap in From and a regularly checked mailbox in ReplyTo helps) and
fight spammers using "legal" ways.

Ref. <news:17****************@PointedEars.de> and
<news:39****************@PointedEars.de> for details.
PointedEars, F'up2 poster (BTW: a request provided by a standard
message header for replies to be sent as e-mail only), as this is
*off-topic* (and I don't know an appropriate newsgroup; if you
know such one, feel free to crosspost with Followup-To that group
instead)
Jul 23 '05 #24
"Christopher J. Hahn" schrieb:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Brian wrote:
First off You only need half a brain to work out what I meant,
if it bothered you that much then all you had to do was point out
that given.com was a real address, my reply would have been sorry
and I would have changed it as I have.

You changed it to something less annoying for the owner of the
domain, but same annoying to readers and still standards-violating:

I hate to butt in where I really don't belong-- I'm still reading up
on USENET and NNTP-related standards-- but which standard does this
violate?

i.e. RFC850 or RFC1036 or something like that?


<news:17****************@PointedEars.de>

This thread just became recursive and the Usenet became fractal.
Oh my ;-)
PointedEars
Jul 23 '05 #25
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
"Christopher J. Hahn" schrieb:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Brian wrote:
> First off You only need half a brain to work out what I meant,
> if it bothered you that much then all you had to do was point out
> that given.com was a real address, my reply would have been sorry
> and I would have changed it as I have.
You changed it to something less annoying for the owner of the
domain, but same annoying to readers and still standards-violating:

I hate to butt in where I really don't belong-- I'm still reading up
on USENET and NNTP-related standards-- but which standard does this
violate?

i.e. RFC850 or RFC1036 or something like that?


<news:17****************@PointedEars.de>

This thread just became recursive and the Usenet became fractal.
Oh my ;-)
PointedEars


Hah, sorry. I didn't see that one.
But RFC1036 says "... This memo is
disributed as an RFC to make this information easily accessible to
the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard."

I get the feeling there's something I'm missing here.

Jul 23 '05 #26
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 10:20:00 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ivan Marsh <an*****@you.now> wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ahh, I should have noticed this earlier.
[...]
Don't tell me what I don't understand
Yet I have to as you don't appear to notice anything anymore.


Wow, you are an arrogant little moron aren't you?
you stupid assfuck!


Sweet.


Yes, not nice to be called something you aren't is it? Sort of like
calling spammers terrorists. Sort of belittles the people blown to bits by
terrorists.
There, now the conversation can end [...]


Yes, indeed.


Apparently not.
| X-Complaints-To: ab***@binc.net

[x] done
Ha! That's funny.
PointedEars (arrogant, wanna'be vulcan, virgin, moron)


You can put me in your killfile now.

--
"Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed."
Benjamin Franklin (I didn't know he was a Buddhist)

Jul 23 '05 #27
JRS: In article <12****************@PointedEars.de>, dated Sun, 17 Jul
2005 07:44:59, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Thomas 'PointedEars'
Lahn <Po*********@web.de> posted :

This is not a (paid) support forum, but a public discussion group!
Go away.


This is a public discussion group, as you say.

As you do not like the way in which the public chooses to use it, it is
you who should go away. You are a despicable example of the Teutonic
bully-boy.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ??*@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.
Jul 23 '05 #28
> Brian wrote:
Hi

I want to create a layer that 100% wide, 200 px high and stays at the
bottom of the screen, even when the page is scrolled, how do I do this?
I have seen it on websites but can't find any example code

Brian


you can use CSS:
position: fixed;


Hi BMGZ, thanks for your suggestion, I have finally got
it working :)

Regards

Brian
Aug 9 '05 #29

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

1 post views Thread by PAD | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by Roderik | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by Roderik | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by headware | last post: by
1 post views Thread by stalinmaddy | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by Chris Zopers | last post: by
5 posts views Thread by Vinnie | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.