|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 10/14/05 08:28
With neither quill nor qualm, rf quothed:
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
> > With neither quill nor qualm, rf quothed:
> >
> >> Neredbojias wrote:
> >>
> >>> With neither quill nor qualm, rf quothed:
> >>>
> >>>> guttyguppy@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Check out http://fieldii.com/pain.html in firefox, and then in IE6.
> >>>>> Notice the callouts getting covered up in IE6? Is there a hack?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes (Nerodbojias) there is a hack.
> >>>>
> >>>> Negative margins will not allow (in IE) the callouts to break outside their
> >>>> container but relative positioning will.
> >>>>
> >>>> For the left, remove
> >>>> margin: left;
> >>>>
> >>>> Add
> >>>> position: relative; left: -50px;
> >>>>
> >>>> To fix up the text flow change
> >>>> margin-right: 10px;
> >>>> to
> >>>> margin-right: -40px;
> >>>>
> >>>> Similar (but the other way round) for the right callout:
> >>>>
> >>>> position: relative;
> >>>> left: 50px;
> >>>> margin-left: -40px;
> >>>
> >>> Well, I was going for a hack for the floats. Anybody could do it with
> >>> relative positioning.
> >>
> >> It's relatively positioned *as well as* floated.
> >
> > I see. I was under the impression that positioned elements could not be
> > floated...
>
> > (w3c css2 spec re. floats: "Applies to: all but positioned elements and
> > generated content")
>
> I'm looking at the css2.1 draft but it says:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#propdef-float
> "[float] only applies to elements that generate boxes that are not
> *absolutely positioned*" <checks/> yep, css2 says that as well.
>
> > ...but apparently by "positioned elements" the illustrious wucccy meant
> > "absolutely positioned" elements which further seem to mean elements
> > positioned in either the absolute or fixed variety (but not relative).
>
> Correct, however said wucccy probably meant "taken out of the flow".
> Absolute and fixed positioned elements are taken out of the flow and so
> float would have no meaning for them. There is nowhere to float them *to*.
>
> Taken the other way round, if an element is both floated *and* absolutely
> positioned where does it live? You can't absolutely position it and then
> float it, it can't float anywhere. Say you float it first. Then, by
> absolutely positioning it, you take it out of the flow and float no longer
> has any meaning. The two are mutually exclusive.
True, and it makes no sense, anyway, since absolute positioned stuff can
be located anywhere.
> Relatively positioned elements are not, however, taken out of the flow. The
> relative positioning happens *after* the page has been layed out. What
> position relative means is: lay out the page and then *move* this element
> by a certain amount. A floated element is just another element in the flow.
> True, it has been moved (relative to its containing element) but it is
> still in the flow and can be relatively positioned.
>
> Relative and float are not mutually exclusive.
>
> IMHO there is confusion in here. Relative should not be a value for the
> position property but rather a seperate property/value thing. Absolute
> happens before the rest of the page is layed out. Relative happens *after*
> the page is layed out. Also, ISTM that one could conceivably relatively
> position an absolutely positioned element. That is, position it *here* but
> then *move* it by this amount .
Perhaps it would have been less confusing if they'd called it "offset
positioning" or just "offset" as the attribute with x,y content.
>
> Why are absolute and realitive mutually exclusive? Well, one reason is that
> they are both values for the same property :-)
Uh, so, I thought, about "block" and "inline"!
>
> Furthur to this is rule one under floats: "The outer edge of the left
> floating box may not be to the left edge of its containing block".
>
> FF is behaving correctly here as the floated elements containing block is
> the <body> element (since no ancestor blocks have position mentioned (well,
> not true in this example, there is a container div that has position
> relative but that is another matter, as is the rather bad CSS used to
> position the various bits on this page))
>
> IE Is not behaving correctly. IE seems to be considering the floated
> elements immediate parent to be its containing element. Broken box model
> probably, even though the page is not firing quirks mode.
>
> > Nice fix, btw.
>
> Thanks.
Good explanation, thanks. You were born to be a teacher (but I still
really hated school. -Except recess.)
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|