Prev: wildcards and the case for setting all default styles
Next: How do I get and set an attribute of a CSS class
From: dorayme on 17 Apr 2008 21:25
In article <66q9kfF2lr04pU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> If the page is higher than the screen, um, isn't the vertical scrollbar
> a good thing?

The issue I thought a worthy curiosity was about browsers thinking the
page was higher than the screen when the code seems to suggest
otherwise. I have snipped all quoting because nothing seems to convey
the sense of our exchange.

* {margin: 0; padding: 0;}
html {border: 4px solid;}
div {border: 4px solid red;height: 100%}

<div>This is not dummy for the content. This is it!</div>

does not look like a page that is higher than any screen I know.

--
dorayme
From: dorayme on 18 Apr 2008 01:05
In article <66qgvlF2kfgnaU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <66q9kfF2lr04pU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> > Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> If the page is higher than the screen, um, isn't the vertical scrollbar
> >> a good thing?
> >
> > The issue I thought a worthy curiosity was about browsers thinking the
> > page was higher than the screen when the code seems to suggest
> > otherwise.

> I confess I wasn't really examining that particular example because I
> was concentrating on the fact that it was off the trail from what I (and
> I thought we) were trying to deal with for the OP's sake. Sorry. Anyway,
> if you leave out the height: 100%, what happens?

Nothing interesting.

> And what happens with
> the height: 100%? I'm imagining that the full height of
> the whole thing has to be the DIV's height plus the height of the
> borders, so more than 100%.

It's ok Harlan.

I will raise some matters about this at another time. There are just
some puzzles I am having in my deep investigations into Root theory and
it may be dangerous to raise them now. Timing is everything when I have
a case on. You don't see Miss Marple or Monsieur Poirot blurting out
things at the wrong time.

What I can say, running a small but controllable risk, is this:

The HTML element is to be viewed with suspicion. It started off as a
sort of Sidereal April Fool's joke but got taken up by earthlings for
serious purposes, its origins playing up now and again and pulling Body
into its crazy gambits. These two elements have a nasty side to them
which will be fully revealed in my forthcoming book, Clockwork Elements.
A bit like the characters in a film of similar name, who dress up in
clownish attire...

(Anyone who wants to book advance copies, please send $US10)

--
dorayme
From: Ben C on 18 Apr 2008 03:52
On 2008-04-18, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <66q9kfF2lr04pU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> If the page is higher than the screen, um, isn't the vertical scrollbar
>> a good thing?
>
> The issue I thought a worthy curiosity was about browsers thinking the
> page was higher than the screen when the code seems to suggest
> otherwise. I have snipped all quoting because nothing seems to convey
> the sense of our exchange.
>
> * {margin: 0; padding: 0;}
> html {border: 4px solid;}
> div {border: 4px solid red;height: 100%}
>
><div>This is not dummy for the content. This is it!</div>
>
> does not look like a page that is higher than any screen I know.

As Harlan said there the div's content area is 100% the height of the
html's content area. So its borders take it 8px over and so you will get
8px of vertical scroll.

I don't think there's any special root element skulduggery going on in
this example.
From: dorayme on 18 Apr 2008 05:35
In article <slrng0gkr1.uj7.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote:

> On 2008-04-18, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > In article <66q9kfF2lr04pU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> > Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> If the page is higher than the screen, um, isn't the vertical scrollbar
> >> a good thing?
> >
> > The issue I thought a worthy curiosity was about browsers thinking the
> > page was higher than the screen when the code seems to suggest
> > otherwise. I have snipped all quoting because nothing seems to convey
> > the sense of our exchange.
> >
> > * {margin: 0; padding: 0;}
> > html {border: 4px solid;}
> > div {border: 4px solid red;height: 100%}
> >
> ><div>This is not dummy for the content. This is it!</div>
> >
> > does not look like a page that is higher than any screen I know.
>
> As Harlan said there the div's content area is 100% the height of the
> html's content area. So its borders take it 8px over and so you will get
> 8px of vertical scroll.
>
> I don't think there's any special root element skulduggery going on in
> this example.

One one level, I agree and will not dispute Harlan or you. However there
is another interesting question to do with what we might expect to be
rational relations between two shady characters, The HTML element and
The Viewport - egged on by The Canvas, in my opinion, but this is harder
to prove.

Perhaps I better not comment further on this very unsettling matter for
now. But rest assured, Ben, I will one day, when I can demonstrate to
the masses of long suffering authors, the punters, the aggrieved, the
people, that *make* the web, that they have been taken for a bit of a
ride in the selfish interests of two or three over-protected
individuals.

My agency has these individuals in its sight. The HTML element is easy
to track, the viewport is a bit of a chameleon, the Canvas mostly hides
in its infinity but I have developed techniques borrowed from planetary
astronomy, to tease some of its secrets out.

Let us leave this for now so that I can get on with my mysterious work.

--
dorayme
From: Steve on 18 Apr 2008 16:14
On Apr 17, 8:51 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> Breathe, have some coffee, then refer to the OP. The core of his
> question: "The height and width of the class are set to 100%. I want
> the DIV to cover the whole HTML page, but it only covers the browser
> screen." Assuming the <div> and </div> encircle the entire contents of
> the body, the way to have the DIV "cover" the whole HTML page, in the
> sense I understand "cover" to have", is NOT to set the DIV's height.

I'm the original poster. The DIV that I want to cover the whole HTML
page instead of just the browser screen does NOT encircle the entire
HTML page. It is an empty div at the bottom:

<div id = "lightboxBackground"></div>

How would I get that to cover the whole page, without javascript and
just CSS? I got the effect I want, but I would love to be able to do
it with just CSS and in the same way for FF, IE, Safari & Opera

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: wildcards and the case for setting all default styles
Next: How do I get and set an attribute of a CSS class