Stylesheets - Strange Bug

Author

Strange Bug

Gerry Vandermaesen

2006-04-10, 7:12 pm

I'm having a problem with IE which displays my page footer partly
beneath the viewable/scrollable window. It seems to calculate the
bottom margin from the top of the div without looking at it's content.

I'm not even using absolute positioning there so I'm not sure what the
problem is. Any explanation for this and maybe some clean solution?

http://users.skynet.be/fa800152/

Jim Moe

2006-04-10, 7:13 pm

Gerry Vandermaesen wrote:
> I'm having a problem with IE which displays my page footer partly
> beneath the viewable/scrollable window. It seems to calculate the
> bottom margin from the top of the div without looking at it's content.
>
> I'm not even using absolute positioning there so I'm not sure what the
> problem is. Any explanation for this and maybe some clean solution?
>
> http://users.skynet.be/fa800152/
>
IE does positioning poorly in general. Avoid it wherever possible.
In #main IE does not account for the 20px re-positioning so it pushes
the footer below the viewport by that amount.
In #main replace "position: relative; top: 20px; left: 20px" with
"padding: 20px 0 0 20px".

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Neredbojias

2006-04-10, 7:13 pm

To further the education of mankind, "Gerry Vandermaesen"
<gerry.vandermaesen@XXXXXXXXXX> declaimed:

> I'm having a problem with IE which displays my page footer partly
> beneath the viewable/scrollable window. It seems to calculate the
> bottom margin from the top of the div without looking at it's content.
>
> I'm not even using absolute positioning there so I'm not sure what the
> problem is. Any explanation for this and maybe some clean solution?
>
> http://users.skynet.be/fa800152/

The only thing I see at first-browse is:

border-left: none; (et al)

isn't defined. Use 0. I doubt that's the cause, however. It's probably
some IE-specific bug. I might try moving the footer out of the main div if
nothing else worked.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.

Johannes Koch

2006-04-10, 7:13 pm

Neredbojias wrote:
> The only thing I see at first-browse is:
>
> border-left: none; (et al)
>
> isn't defined.

It is. <q
cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/box.html#propdef-border-left">Omitted
values are set to their initial values.</q> So it means:

border-left-style: none;
border-left-width: medium;
border-left-color: <the value of the 'color' property>
--
Johannes Koch
Spem in alium nunquam habui praeter in te, Deus Israel.
(Thomas Tallis, 40-part motet)

Neredbojias

2006-04-10, 11:00 pm

To further the education of mankind, Johannes Koch
<koch@w3development.de> declaimed:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>
> It is. <q
> cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/box.html#propdef-border-left">Omitt
> ed values are set to their initial values.</q> So it means:
>
> border-left-style: none;
> border-left-width: medium;
> border-left-color: <the value of the 'color' property>

'None' is not an omitted value. It may be _considered_ omitted since it is
invalid, but "border-left-style:none;" is the proper syntax, or simply
"border-left:0;".

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.

Johannes Koch

2006-04-11, 6:59 am

Neredbojias wrote:

> To further the education of mankind, Johannes Koch
> <koch@w3development.de> declaimed:
>
>
>
> 'None' is not an omitted value.

No. But the other values (width and color) are omitted. Did you read the
part of the spec, I referenced?

> It may be _considered_ omitted since it is
> invalid,

Why do you think, it is invalid?

> but "border-left-style:none;" is the proper syntax, or simply
> "border-left:0;".

Which is just another "shorthand" omitting different values (style and
color).

--
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
(Te Deum, 4th cent.)

Gerry Vandermaesen

2006-04-11, 6:59 am

Jim Moe wrote:
> IE does positioning poorly in general. Avoid it wherever possible.
> In #main IE does not account for the 20px re-positioning so it pushes
> the footer below the viewport by that amount.
> In #main replace "position: relative; top: 20px; left: 20px" with
> "padding: 20px 0 0 20px".

Thanks. That indeed solved that problem, but seems to have invoked
another IE bug.

Now there's a margin between my content layer and the footer, even
though none is specified. In Firefox the footer is placed as expected
directly under the content. At first I thought it was some form of the
IE double margin bug with floating layers, but changing their display
to inline has no effect.

Any thoughts? See http://users.skynet.be/fa800152/

Neredbojias

2006-04-11, 6:59 am

To further the education of mankind, Johannes Koch
<koch@w3development.de> declaimed:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>
> No. But the other values (width and color) are omitted. Did you read
> the part of the spec, I referenced?
>
>
> Why do you think, it is invalid?

"None" is not a listed parameter of the "border-left:" attribute. It
_is_ a proper parameter of "border-left-style:".

>
>
> Which is just another "shorthand" omitting different values (style and
> color).

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.

Gerry Vandermaesen

2006-04-11, 6:59 am

Allthough this discussion is getting a bit off-topic of my original
question, I believe "border-left: none" is a valid short hand for
"border-left-style: none".

If you have a look on http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/box.html bottom of
the page, you see W3C using the same syntax in their valid example but
with style set to double instead of none.

Consider this example:

BLOCKQUOTE {
border-color: red;
border-left: double;
color: black
}

Neredbojias wrote:
> To further the education of mankind, Johannes Koch
> <koch@w3development.de> declaimed:
>
>
> "None" is not a listed parameter of the "border-left:" attribute. It
> _is_ a proper parameter of "border-left-style:".
>
>
> --
> Neredbojias
> Infinity can have limits.

Johannes Koch

2006-04-11, 6:59 am

Neredbojias wrote:

> "None" is not a listed parameter of the "border-left:" attribute.

PLease give a reference to this list of parameters.

> It
> _is_ a proper parameter of "border-left-style:".

It is a valid property value for border-left-style, yes.

--
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
(Te Deum, 4th cent.)

Duncan Booth

2006-04-11, 6:59 pm

Gerry Vandermaesen wrote:

> Allthough this discussion is getting a bit off-topic of my original
> question, I believe "border-left: none" is a valid short hand for
> "border-left-style: none".

Not quite. 'border-left-style: none' sets only the left border style.
'border-left: none' will set not only the style, but also the colour and
width.

>
> If you have a look on http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/box.html bottom of
> the page, you see W3C using the same syntax in their valid example but
> with style set to double instead of none.
>
> Consider this example:
>
> BLOCKQUOTE {
> border-color: red;
> border-left: double;
> color: black
> }
>
Did you spot the paragraph below the example which points out that this
gives you a black left border? Using 'border-left-style: double' here
instead of 'border-left: double' would give a red left border.

Tony

2006-04-11, 6:59 pm

Johannes Koch wrote:
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>
> PLease give a reference to this list of parameters.

According to the spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/box.h...rder-properties

the value of border-left can be width OR style OR color.

The values allowed for border-style include 'none'.

Therefore, it would follow that 'none' is an allowable value for
border-left, too.

Neredbojias

2006-04-11, 11:02 pm

To further the education of mankind, Johannes Koch <koch@w3development.de>
declaimed:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>
> PLease give a reference to this list of parameters.
>
>
> It is a valid property value for border-left-style, yes.

OK, I read Tony's reply and agree with it. So I was wrong. First time
ever...

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.

Neredbojias

2006-04-11, 11:02 pm

Neredbojias

2006-04-11, 11:02 pm