Re: Divs Can't Replace A Table

Red <groups (AT) reenie (DOT) org> wrote:

This is called a liquid layout, which you have created by using relative
positioning, which is the default for css.

Static is the default.

If you don't want anything to
move, use absolute positioning.

Many beginners make the mistake of thinking that css absolute
positioning is the way to create pixel prefect layouts that will look
the same in every css browser. Most of the time what they produce not
only does not achieve the desired goal, it fights the strengths of the
medium. There are relatively few cases where using css absolute
positioning makes sense, and in the cases where it does it requires
considerable skill to understand, implement and to reduce the associated
drawbacks (some are unavoidable).

Bottom line: stay away from absolute positioning until you are a skilled
css'er.

--
Spartanicus

Red wrote:

Spartanicus wrote:

Red <groups (AT) reenie (DOT) org> wrote:


This is called a liquid layout, which you have created by using
relative positioning, which is the default for css.



Static is the default.


relative positioning is static ? How is that ? Doesn't make any sense to
me. I seems that absolute positioning would be considered static, and
it surely is not the default.

Read in the CSS spec about positioning. Values are 'static', 'relative',
'absolute', or 'fixed'. The default is 'static'.
--
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
(Te Deum, 4th cent.)

Johannes Koch wrote:

Read in the CSS spec about positioning. Values are 'static', 'relative',
'absolute', or 'fixed'. The default is 'static'.

OK sorry. I thought had I read it some book, but I guess I was mistaken.

red

Red <groups (AT) reenie (DOT) org> wrote:

Most
layout tutorials such as http://bluerobot.com/web/layouts/layout1.html
use it to some extent.

Most web layout tutorials are poor quality, copying code from the web
without an understanding of how it works is not the way to go.

What in particular are the drawbacks of the particular code I posted ?

Can't say without actual content.

It seemed to do what the original poster wanted.

Including the horizontal scrollbar?

the original poster wanted the columns to fill the screen.

People want things they shouldn't be wanting.

--
Spartanicus

Spartanicus <me (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote in message

It seemed to do what the original poster wanted.

Including the horizontal scrollbar?

???

the original poster wanted the columns to fill the screen.

People want things they shouldn't be wanting.

This about sums up CSS in a nutshell, and is, not to mention, one of
the dumbest statements I've heard in a news group. Columns on a Web
site with different background colors that fill the view port, YA,
that is absurd, why would I want that? I shouldn't. Div's that don't
drop out of view when a pixel goes beyond the view port, div's that
stretch vertically, all dumb. In fact why do we have div's that
stretch horizontally, that doesn't make sense either.

"Vertical stretch
One of the somewhat frustrating properties of CSS is the fact that
elements only stretch vertically as far as they need to. Meaning, if a
200-pixel tall image is contained within a <div>, the <div> will only
expand down the page 200 pixels.
"
Faux Columns
by Dan Cederholm
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/fauxcolumns

Ya, hack after hack to get css to do the simplest things.

*Tyler Carver* <xfreshy222-2 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>:

Ya, hack after hack to get css to do the simplest things.

s/the simplest things/things CSS was not designed to do or that (some)
browsers don't support (yet)/

OTOH I can't think of one thing CSS2 can't do that presentational HTML
could do (apart from table layouts using 'rowspan' and 'colspan').

--
"Censorship, like charity, should begin at home;
but, unlike charity, it should end there."

Clare Booth Luce