Posted by Neredbojias on 09/26/07 06:37

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:59:43
GMT rf scribed:

>>> How do I get two div sections to sit next to each other
>>> horizontally?
>>
>> I subscribe to Andy's well-presented opinion on the matter. However,
>> divs don't go "all the way to the bottom of the page" if the content
>> is insufficient unless the author does something which is usually
>> wrong. That's a fact to bear in mind particularly when considering
>> backgrounds.
>
> Further, what exactly is the "page"?
>
> Usually, with a really simple HTML file, it is the end of that HTML
> file. The bottom of the "content". Where the browser stops scrolling
> when one leans on ones page down button, because said browser can't go
> down any more. There is nothing further. Therebelow lie dragons.
>
> However if one distrupts the usual content flow by introducing floated
> elements or <shudder> absolutely positioned elements </shudder> then
> one totally loses the concept of the "page".
>
> Where is the bottom of the "page" for a floated element? The bottom of
> the element? The bottom of the surrounding content?
>
> Where is the bottom of the "page" for an absolutely positioned div
> element?
>
> Where is the bottom of the "page" for an absolutely positioned div
> element where top: 1000px; has been specified? (try it and see, you
> will need to scroll down). Indeed if that element is the only one in
> the body of the HTML file where is the "top" of the "page"? Pixel 0 or
> pixel 1000?
>
> Hint: We don't actually know.
>
> The best we can guess is that, after the browser has done its best to
> lay out the content, after due consideration to these floated and
> positioned elements, the bottom of the page is where there is nothing
> more. That is, the browser does not need to draw anything below this
> point. You have reached the end of the scroll bar. And no, there is no
> CSS property to position something at the end of the scroll bar, least
> of all the bottom of an element :-)
>
> In any case HTML files do not describe "pages". They describe content,
> with CSS to pretty that content. The browser lays out the elements
> containing the content as it sees fit, with the CSS taken into
> account. Why should we ask more? "Page" is for print, not web.
>
> Ah, but I see I have just upset a considerable number of graphic
> artists who think they are web drezigners ;-)

Yeah, I agree. Page is at most an inexact concept when it comes to The
Web. What you really have is a "set of content" which may contain
subsets and elements therein. How these elements relate to one another
in a visual and particularly semantic fashion for the non-visual
interpreter is what web page design is about, not the physically-limited
methods typically applied to print. That's why "fixed" web design stands
out as being poor while a smoothly-flowing, adeptly-integrated page seems
so intrinsically "right" and attractive.

So-called designers who brag about the looks of their static page are
really just saying that one frame in a movie appears nicely rendered.
The rest of the movie sucks, but that isn't their worry because they are
too dense to understand it.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

[Back to original message]