Float and Shrinkwrap
in [CSS]
|
Prev: fixed height.
Next: Newbie layout/positioning problem
From: dorayme on 3 Apr 2008 23:51 In article <MsGdndQCEoMuCWjanZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, Jeff <jeff(a)spam_me_not.com> wrote: > Something about floats shrinking to the minimum size of the contents, > again something I'm unfamiliar with. A float sizes itself to the content. Just see by giving a float a border and varying text. But not an ordinary div that is given a width. -- dorayme
From: Gus Richter on 3 Apr 2008 23:00 dorayme wrote: > In article <MsGdndQCEoMuCWjanZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, > Jeff <jeff(a)spam_me_not.com> wrote: > >> Something about floats shrinking to the minimum size of the contents, >> again something I'm unfamiliar with. > > A float sizes itself to the content. Just see by giving a float a border > and varying text. > > But not an ordinary div that is given a width. The subsequent text wraps around the float like shrinkwrapping paper does. You obviously don't spend much time in the kitchen. -- Gus
From: Gus Richter on 3 Apr 2008 23:04 dorayme wrote: > In article <MPWdnYQR98QBFWjanZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d(a)golden.net>, > Gus Richter <gusrichter(a)netscape.net> wrote: > >> #shrink {border: 1px solid;background: #ffc;width:8em;} > > OK Gus, will take a look. But I am puzzled why you talk of #shrink being > "shrinkwrapped" (I used the id to try to interpret what you meant by > styling it with something that is normally associated with the idea of > shrinkwrapping. You drop this. Giving a div a width is not "shrink" > wrapping it.) #shrink is not being shrinkwrapped. It does the shrinkwrapping. #float is what is being shrinkwrapped by #shrink. I won't use the term any more if it is confusing. -- Gus
From: dorayme on 4 Apr 2008 00:22 In article <_7KdnfgxaskgBGjanZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d(a)golden.net>, Gus Richter <gusrichter(a)netscape.net> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > In article <MsGdndQCEoMuCWjanZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, > > Jeff <jeff(a)spam_me_not.com> wrote: > > > >> Something about floats shrinking to the minimum size of the contents, > >> again something I'm unfamiliar with. > > > > A float sizes itself to the content. Just see by giving a float a border > > and varying text. > > > > But not an ordinary div that is given a width. > > The subsequent text wraps around the float like shrinkwrapping paper > does. You obviously don't spend much time in the kitchen. All this is distracting from your interesting question. "subsequent text" in what? "Wrapping" is one thing, shrink-wrapping is another, author widthing is yet another. I don't really know what you are meaning by the reference to the kitchen. I will say it again. A div that is not positioned, a *normal* div is not a shrink-wrapping machine. A table cell is. A div that is widthed by the author, also, is not a shrink-wrapping machine. Text (that is not inside the float element) that wraps under the float is not due to anything that can be called non-confusingly shrink-wrapping. It wraps because there is no more room on the line. If no author width is specified for the element that is not the float, it will wrap only when user's browser has a width limitation*. See what the difference is between a normal div and a float or table cell by giving a border and varying the amount of text. You will see a difference and the difference is one between shrink-wrapping and not shrink-wrapping. In the normal div, a short bit of text will not cause the width of the element to shrink to contain the text. The author unwidthed div is simply 100%. The border will reflect this. Now, can I please get back to Appendix E without being disturbed to see what the hell it is saying? I am fast running out of time here. ---------- * Out back home we have browsers that are several miles wide (as are our kitchens) and wrapping does not conjure up the thought of *shrink-wrapping* at all. So no need to assume anything about my knowledge of kitchens which is likely much more extensive than anyone bar maybe Toby Inkster who was a Chef once. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 4 Apr 2008 00:27
In article <Gc2dnQtbW8ZTB2janZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d(a)golden.net>, Gus Richter <gusrichter(a)netscape.net> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > In article <MPWdnYQR98QBFWjanZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d(a)golden.net>, > > Gus Richter <gusrichter(a)netscape.net> wrote: > > > >> #shrink {border: 1px solid;background: #ffc;width:8em;} > > > > OK Gus, will take a look. But I am puzzled why you talk of #shrink being > > "shrinkwrapped" (I used the id to try to interpret what you meant by > > styling it with something that is normally associated with the idea of > > shrinkwrapping. You drop this. Giving a div a width is not "shrink" > > wrapping it.) > > #shrink is not being shrinkwrapped. It does the shrinkwrapping. #float > is what is being shrinkwrapped by #shrink. > This is not right Gus. The float does it all by itself for its own text. The div (as you have them) are not doing *this* shrink-wrapping thing Remove the widths on everything completely (which are not needed for your interesting question btw) to see. > I won't use the term any more if it is confusing. -- dorayme |