Posted by rf on 12/29/07 02:02

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-453A91.10514729122007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <eGedj.28667$CN4.23176@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> "rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote:

>> 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.

Hmmm. I have absolutely no idea why I am talking about overflow: scroll. I
also have absolutely no idea why in the "other thread" I mentioned overflow:
scroll.

In all cases I mean overflow: auto; and, yes, in all my code I do in fact
use overflow: auto;. Overflow: scroll; *always* produces scroll bars which,
in establishing a new block formatting context, is neither needed nor
wanted. Overflow: auto; is the one we should be using. As stated above it
would be better if there were some more formal method of establishing the
new context, rather than a side effect of a totally unrelated property.

Must have been a brain fart during all previous posts :-)

Now, to restate my original statement in this thread: Don't be tempted to
use overflow: auto; or overflow: scroll; to emulate frames.

Yep. That's better :-)

--
Richard.

[Back to original message]