Posted by rf on 12/28/07 22:22

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-D41192.06511229122007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...

> (btw, what caught my eye in your remarks, rf, was you saying,
> above,
>
> "do not be tempted to use overflow: scroll on anything"
>
> because, your words in another thread were still ringing in my
> ears:
>
> "I usually however use overflow: scroll"
>
> I looked into these remarks of yours yesterday in another
> connection and I think I learnt something. I was tinkering with
> and advancing my little story telling project at
> http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/ Sure, it was in another
> context and I am not saying you are contradicting yourself, keep
> your shirt on. What you and especially Ben said about overflow
> was most interesting to me.)

No contradiction.

Case 1. Use overflow:scroll to simulate the behaviour of a frame (or an
iframe) where one *knows* the height (and possibly width) of the container
is specified, usually to the dimensions of the viewport, just like frames
are and one knows there *will* be scroll bars.

Case 2. Use overflow scroll to entrap floated decendants, where one does
*not* specify the height or width of the container, thus allowing it to grow
to the size of its content and where one fervently hopes there *will not* be
any scroll bars, except in extreme circumstances.

We would not be using case 2 if there were other more direct ways of
obtaining the result.

--
Richard.

[Back to original message]