Sent by Adam Wodon on 14 August 2002 05:05
OK, no one else seems interested, so I'll answer my own question :-)
Since I wrote the original message, I "fixed" the bug by doing the same
thing I had to do to the "absolute within a relative div" bug. That is,
add a specific "width" -- of any amount -- to the content div.
Re: "absolute within relative" ... In trying to pull off a certain
4-column layout -- I was trying to avoid a "float: right" in the middle
cell. Since I didn't need to have any text actually wrap around this
4th column, I didn't need to use a float. Unfortunately, IE has that
bug which ignores the right margin of the container, and uses the right
margin of the whole window.
Now ... onto this float bug. IE has that strange bug when you float:
right, where text disappears and reappears when you hover over links, or
disappears entirely. Which most of you know.
Well, BOTH bugs are solved by setting a width on the "content" div.
(Thanks to Big John for pointing that out vis-a-vis absolute/relative).
In this case, I put in content: 70%.
** The problem is, there is no good figure to put in for the width that
will work, that will keep that middle div fluid, and the left and right
div static. i.e., I want left and right at 150px each, and the middle
to be the rest. So I can't set a width on the middle. Not even a
percentage width will work, because the percentage will change depending
on how much real estate is left over. You can't set a CSS value of:
"100% minus 300px"
Now that I'm writing this, I wonder if I can wrap the div in an empty
div ... The wrapper div can have no width, then the container div can
have width: 100%. hmmm.... I'll have to try.
** my question about the behavior of the background of the float
container still stands. See below...
> http://www.13nomads.com/uscho/confhome.php
>
> First, in NN6 ... where the float works fine. But I don't understand
why the
> float doesn't push the div that says "Top Stories" out of the way. Its
> background goes all the way across behind the float. I'm not saying
this is
> a bug -- I just don't understand why that's happening.
I'm still curious ... and wondering if there's a solution to what I'm
trying to do there.
Adam W.