Float and Shrinkwrap
in [CSS]
|
Prev: fixed height.
Next: Newbie layout/positioning problem
From: dorayme on 4 Apr 2008 00:48 In article <doraymeRidThis-A8B9E4.14270204042008(a)news-vip.optusnet.com.au>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <Gc2dnQtbW8ZTB2janZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d(a)golden.net>, > Gus Richter <gusrichter(a)netscape.net> wrote: > > > I won't use the term any more if it is confusing. I think your question boils down to why the difference between the 2nd and 3rd of: <http://netweaver.com.au/alt/visibleOrder.html> -- dorayme
From: Gus Richter on 4 Apr 2008 00:31 dorayme wrote: > 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 Fine. The text wraps around the float. Forget about the word "Shrinkwrapping". No problem. Perhaps you confuse the float somehow. The float is a box with "Some text and more" with a green background. You say I should remove the dimensions. I have no idea why when I desire them. Remember that the float could be an image with its dimensions. I also wish to set the width for shrink box just because I can and to see it wrap around the float. > Remove the widths on everything completely (which are not needed for > your interesting question btw) to see. No! The dimensions are needed! As is! In my examples! 1. In the 1st example it shows text wrapping around a float. 2. In the 2nd example position:relative; is applied to #shrink. #float now goes behind #shrink. _Why?_ 3. Example 3 is the same as the second example except background is removed from #shrink. #float is still behind #shrink but can be seen. Example 3 is only to show what's behind and in front. I hope that this is clearer. BTW, I believe that I understand floats very well and the examples are clean and simple. Once we get past this, there is only the stacking order with my _Why?_ remaining, with Firefox, Opera and Safari behaving the same. ~~~~~~~~ In a shipping environment, the item to be shipped may be shrinkwrapped. This procedure does not alter the size of the item. The method I have seen uses foam material which expands to envelop the item and takes on the form of the item, padding the item within the cardboard box, ready for shipping. The first I saw was shrink-tubing which under heat would contract tightly over the item. I used this to insulate soldered wire joints. Size of the item (relate this to the float) does not change, only the shrinkwrapping goes around the item (relate this to the _text_ within div#shrink). The kitchen part is thinking of the cellophane stretchable material which you can use to wrap your vegetables, etc. to protect and keep fresh. It also kind of shrinkwraps around the item. If this is still unclear, then back to Appendix E. -- Gus Hey, it's the way my mind works. And it works - at times.
From: dorayme on 4 Apr 2008 01:40 In article <ocednXRAqO-WMmjanZ2dnUVZ_h6hnZ2d(a)golden.net>, Gus Richter <gusrichter(a)netscape.net> wrote: > No! The dimensions are needed! As is! In my examples! Gus. I am not saying you should not have the widths for some other purposes of your own! Have them! They are yours. I am happy you should have them. Really. I am only saying that that there is an interesting question about the visibility that has *nothing whatsoever* to do with your widths or any consequence of your widths. And it seems to me to be your essential question. See the url I gave before. <http://netweaver.com.au/alt/visibleOrder.html> The question still remains without the widths. Agree? -- dorayme
From: Gus Richter on 4 Apr 2008 00:52 dorayme wrote: > In article > <doraymeRidThis-A8B9E4.14270204042008(a)news-vip.optusnet.com.au>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> In article <Gc2dnQtbW8ZTB2janZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d(a)golden.net>, >> Gus Richter <gusrichter(a)netscape.net> wrote: >> >>> I won't use the term any more if it is confusing. > > I think your question boils down to why the difference between the 2nd > and 3rd of: > > <http://netweaver.com.au/alt/visibleOrder.html> Well, we could talk about your re-do, but why not mine? Any way, your re-do has background:transparent; on the div which should be on the float the 3rd time it's used in the example. The question as posed before and here as well: In the 2nd line, why does the float move to the back behind the div once position:relative; is applied to the div? -- Gus
From: Gus Richter on 4 Apr 2008 00:56
dorayme wrote: > In article <ocednXRAqO-WMmjanZ2dnUVZ_h6hnZ2d(a)golden.net>, > Gus Richter <gusrichter(a)netscape.net> wrote: > >> No! The dimensions are needed! As is! In my examples! > > Gus. I am not saying you should not have the widths for some other > purposes of your own! Have them! They are yours. I am happy you should > have them. Really. > > I am only saying that that there is an interesting question about the > visibility that has *nothing whatsoever* to do with your widths or any > consequence of your widths. And it seems to me to be your essential > question. See the url I gave before. > > <http://netweaver.com.au/alt/visibleOrder.html> > > The question still remains without the widths. Agree? Yes I agree. I set it up like I did in order to make it clear and simple. Boy was I wrong. I re-did the question to your example. -- Gus |