 | |
#1
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Why can I not make it work right? -
04-14-2008
, 12:06 AM
|
Ok so like what the sam hell is the trick here to get a division to float where I want it to? When I display it in FF, "name" and "label" appear on two seperate lines.with a float:left for "label". Using the same example dorayme gave, it worked just fine. I go to add in other css elements and it won't float. No how no way. So what am I not doing right? |
might find it useful to read at least page 5 of a thing on floats:
<http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page5.html>
and see the remarks at the bottom and follow links to the appendices and
follow further links there to screen shots on this matter.
I know, it is a bit of a bore, but it might get you clear on it a bit?
--
dorayme
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <q1m5041df42e8nvhf43vridm4bo9ujh9j4 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, richard <i.do.not (AT) ca (DOT) re> wrote: Ok so like what the sam hell is the trick here to get a division to float where I want it to? When I display it in FF, "name" and "label" appear on two seperate lines.with a float:left for "label". Using the same example dorayme gave, it worked just fine. I go to add in other css elements and it won't float. No how no way. So what am I not doing right? FF behaves differently to some other browsers in regard to floats. You might find it useful to read at least page 5 of a thing on floats: http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page5.html and see the remarks at the bottom and follow links to the appendices and follow further links there to screen shots on this matter. I know, it is a bit of a bore, but it might get you clear on it a bit? |
Nice informative pages there. Tell me, you are the author, aren't
you? The writing style just drips of Dorayme. It's all warm and
cuddly.
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
Nice informative pages there. Tell me, you are the author, aren't you? The writing style just drips of Dorayme. It's all warm and cuddly. |
code on page 1. It doesn't match the descriptons. If you're not then
look anyway and laugh at the author.
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:47:05 +0100, Mike Barnard m.barnard.trousers (AT) thunderin (DOT) co.uk> wrote: you'd better look at the example code on page 1. It doesn't match the descriptons. If you're not then look anyway and laugh at the author. |
stories.
Before you jump in though, please verify that the sort of code in the
captions does *not* give you the result that is being talked about and
meant in the text.
Btw, it is not a tutorial, it is me fantasising about things and you
being unlucky enough to see the process. <g>
----------------------------------
* The difficulties inherent in the concept of matching are many. In
fact, they are the same, more or less, as the difficulties in the notion
of identity. Both qualitative identity and quantitative identity are
tricky beasts. The latter has seemed to be a nonsense to some people: if
two things are the very same thing then there were not two things in the
first place.
And the former is just plain dangerous because two things are always the
same or not the same in various respects.
But, worry not Mike, I have the mirror here anyway and I am splitting my
sides laughing at the author right or wrong without a clue what quite
your good self is referring to.
--
dorayme
#5
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
you'd better look at the example code on page 1. It doesn't match the descriptons. If you're not then look anyway and laugh at the author. Match*? If I have erred, I will correct. Always hard to proof one's own stories. Before you jump in though, please verify that the sort of code in the captions does *not* give you the result that is being talked about and meant in the text. |
"...Let us put an explicit height on them both, see how they might
then appear and compare:"
Fig 3. <div style="width:500px;"></div>
There is no explicit height in the text although it must be in the
source.
" ... whereas the one in (3) has no width at all."
"I know, it seems queer that the div in (3) has a height but no
width..."
Yes it has, 500px.
And I love figure 5. I wonder if a use could be made of it on a page?
Quote:
|
Btw, it is not a tutorial, it is me fantasising about things and you being unlucky enough to see the process. <g |
Quote:
|
---------------------------------- * The difficulties inherent in the concept of matching are many. In fact, they are the same, more or less, as the difficulties in the notion of identity. Both qualitative identity and quantitative identity are tricky beasts. The latter has seemed to be a nonsense to some people: if two things are the very same thing then there were not two things in the first place. And the former is just plain dangerous because two things are always the same or not the same in various respects. |
Quote:
|
But, worry not Mike, I have the mirror here anyway and I am splitting my sides laughing at the author right or wrong without a clue what quite your good self is referring to. |
wonky even though it isn't.
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:51:20 +1000, dorayme doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote: you'd better look at the example code on page 1. It doesn't match the descriptons. If you're not then look anyway and laugh at the author. Match*? If I have erred, I will correct. Always hard to proof one's own stories. Before you jump in though, please verify that the sort of code in the captions does *not* give you the result that is being talked about and meant in the text. OK, what I meant was... "...Let us put an explicit height on them both, see how they might then appear and compare:" Fig 3. <div style="width:500px;"></div There is no explicit height in the text although it must be in the source. |
would trust me and I was lazy to repeat in the caption! I did a lot of
quick judging and editing of what was sufficient for the captions to
keep them short but give the general idea along with the main text. But
I am thinking you are right and it would lessen confusion. I will put it
in. It is in now! Thank you. I have been meaning to find time to go
through all the captions... bit boring now it is done!
Quote:
|
" ... whereas the one in (3) has no width at all." "I know, it seems queer that the div in (3) has a height but no width..." Yes it has, 500px. |
in the caption, should have read 0 as in the real code. Fixed.
Quote:
|
And I love figure 5. I wonder if a use could be made of it on a page? |
But keep that proof-reading up old son! In return, I will commission you
to give me a fire-risk assessment for some of my hotter websites. <g>
--------------------------
[If anyone does see obvious mistakes, but prefers not to associate with
me publicly (which is perfectly understandable given my despicable and
cowardly and rude public demeanour) there is always the privacy of
email!
Why, I hate to gossip like this but, only the other day, at our little
tete a tete in his luxurious killfile, JK was saying that if he was not
able to meet me so regularly in it, he would like to email me privately
and would I mind very much. He explained that a named individual with a
persona of great authority cannot be seen to be consorting with the
likes of me in public. We discussed this in terms of the interesting
counterfactuals depicted and our little morning session was longer than
usual on that occasion. My my how sweetly these meetings are going.]
--
dorayme
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.