Posted by dorayme on 12/28/07 23:51

In article <eGedj.28667$CN4.23176@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote:

> "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"
> >
....
>
> No contradiction.
>

True. Words that ring in ears out of context can be mere triggers
for reminders. <g>

> 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.

There is overflow: auto and hidden and at some stage I would not
mind you expanding on why you prefer "scroll" over "auto". But I
guess this thread is not the right one.

At http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page8.html I end with your
suggestion but it looks not to be as good as "auto". But my mind
is quite open on all of this. It's quite interesting. Depending
on what I learn or think in coming weeks, I might make an
appendix to page 8 to go into it a bit.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]