Why doesn´t width and max-width work?

Ok, here´s a really elementary question:

-- Why doesn't "width" and/or "max-width" in CSS have any effect on, for
instance <div> or <td>? (I'm using Firefox.)

/u

"palun" <flume2001 (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Ok, here´s a really elementary question:

-- Why doesn't "width" and/or "max-width" in CSS have any effect on, for
instance <div> or <td>? (I'm using Firefox.)

They do. URL to what you have tried?

--
Richard.

Sorry, it's not deployed. But the code is really simple:

In html:

<div id="anId">
Some stuff...
</div>

and in css:

#anId {
width=400px;
}

But the content ("Some stuff") still gets spread out over the whole page...


I just realized: Could any of the stuff inside the div affect its width?
I.e. can the content affect the width of the of container? (Not very
logical...)

/ulf

rf skrev:

"palun" <flume2001 (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:64Ghj.2626$R_4.2127 (AT) newsb (DOT) telia.net...
Ok, here´s a really elementary question:

-- Why doesn't "width" and/or "max-width" in CSS have any effect on, for
instance <div> or <td>? (I'm using Firefox.)

They do. URL to what you have tried?

..oO(palun)

Sorry, it's not deployed. But the code is really simple:

In html:

div id="anId"
Some stuff...
/div

and in css:

#anId {
width=400px;
^
}

But the content ("Some stuff") still gets spread out over the whole page...

It's always a good idea to validate the HTML and CSS before asking for
help:

#anId {
width: 400px;
}

Micha

Terribly sorry. My mistake. (I wrote the code in the message. Should
have copied.)

Anyway, the code is correct in the CSS-file (and it still doesn't work).

/ulf

Michael Fesser skrev:

.oO(palun)

Sorry, it's not deployed. But the code is really simple:

In html:

div id="anId"
Some stuff...
/div

and in css:

#anId {
width=400px;
^
}

But the content ("Some stuff") still gets spread out over the whole page...

It's always a good idea to validate the HTML and CSS before asking for
help:

#anId {
width: 400px;
}

Micha

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:22:23
GMT palun scribed:

Terribly sorry. My mistake. (I wrote the code in the message. Should
have copied.)

Anyway, the code is correct in the CSS-file (and it still doesn't
work).

No, it isn't correct or it would work. Trust me.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

On 2008-01-11, palun <flume2001 (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Terribly sorry. My mistake. (I wrote the code in the message. Should
have copied.)

Anyway, the code is correct in the CSS-file (and it still doesn't work).
[...]
But the content ("Some stuff") still gets spread out over the whole page...

It's always a good idea to validate the HTML and CSS before asking for
help:

#anId {
width: 400px;
}

I assure you width does work. There must be something else going on:
perhaps another more specific style sets width back to auto, perhaps you
mis-typed the selector, perhaps the contents overflow.

This is why you have to post a url.

Thanks for your help.
Much appreciated.
/u

Neredbojias skrev:

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:22:23
GMT palun scribed:

Terribly sorry. My mistake. (I wrote the code in the message. Should
have copied.)

Anyway, the code is correct in the CSS-file (and it still doesn't
work).

No, it isn't correct or it would work. Trust me.

You are right. I should deploy it (though it looks terrible right now).
BTW: I did validate it and that seems ok apart from the
"wicket:id"-attributes on some of the tags (required by the wicket
framework -- great stuff if you know some java)
/u

Ben C skrev:

On 2008-01-11, palun <flume2001 (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Terribly sorry. My mistake. (I wrote the code in the message. Should
have copied.)

Anyway, the code is correct in the CSS-file (and it still doesn't work).
[...]
But the content ("Some stuff") still gets spread out over the whole page...
It's always a good idea to validate the HTML and CSS before asking for
help:

#anId {
width: 400px;
}

I assure you width does work. There must be something else going on:
perhaps another more specific style sets width back to auto, perhaps you
mis-typed the selector, perhaps the contents overflow.

This is why you have to post a url.

palun wrote:

You are right.

It's a shame you got any responses at all. You are inconsiderate. You
couldn't be bothered to create an online example of the problem, you
couldn't be bothered to post accurate code, and you couldn't be bothered
to be consistent with everybody else in the group and type your response
below the text you were referring to.