Firefox problems

Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn Ok, I managed to fix it. What I apparently did not realise was that for some strange I frankly stupid reason Firefox widths are content widths, not actual widths. They do not seem to include margins or padding!

that's how CSS works. go through w3.org and see for yourself.

and the point is to be logical. width: 100%; padding:10px;
you first tell it to make a box 100% of the browser window, so it does. the next instruction is to add 10px to the top,right,bottom,left of said box.

Originally Posted by jono1 margin and padding are *supposed* to be added on to the width value. IE gets it wrong. look at it in any standards compliant browser and it will be added on.

IE definitely has a problem with understanding the padding attribute with
<div></div>.

Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn Hmmm... I think I see what you're saying... you mean that the first set are used to postition the item, and the second set are used to size the item? I'll have a look into yor suggestion, and into those CSS Hacks. The problem is I know nothing about CSS or Firefox so a lot of what you're suggesting is going over my head :P How would any of you do it? If you wanted to put a box the width of a page with text in it and have it positioned absolutely. Not how you would position it, not how you would generate it or put the text in it, just how you would get it the width of the page? Presume you know where it is meant to be positioned and that is all in the CSS from the beginning. Surely you would tell it to be 100% and it would be it? I cannot work out how a browser that claims to be set to the standards cannot set the width of a box properly.

I am going to write this as if it were a table with the CSS next to it.

<table><div id="container"> (This would be the outside of the whole page) <td><div id="container2">(This would be the same width as the outside) <!-- Content --> <div id="header"> (The navigation and header of the page)</div> <div id="body"> (The part where it is over extending) <div id="body2"> (Add a second shell to secure it from extending past the outside.) </div> </div> <!-- Content End --> </td></div> </table></div>

Perhaps Isurfr's idea for the item would work, but how can you float a table? Even if you could float a table, that is five times the code I'd ever want to use for the problem. Call me stupid, but I would have thought that when you want a box 100%, it is 100%. 100% of the page does not include a margin, because that margin is an area where nothing goes. You don't put a margin on the body unless you intend it to be space around a page. Even with the JavaScript to sort out the width problem, the ultimate code doesn't even come to half what you suggest.

Originally Posted by jono1 margin and padding are *supposed* to be added on to the width value. IE gets it wrong. look at it in any standards compliant browser and it will be added on.

Why would anybody want to add margin and padding onto the width value? If you do that, it is impossible without hacking to get a floating Div that uses Padding to be the width of a page? Surely that is the most stupid idea ever invented?

Originally Posted by dereklapp that's how CSS works. go through w3.org and see for yourself. and the point is to be logical. width: 100%; padding:10px; you first tell it to make a box 100% of the browser window, so it does. the next instruction is to add 10px to the top,right,bottom,left of said box.

Well then perhaps the twits at W3C have some serious problems. That is not at all logical.

When you make a box out of wood. You measure the wood. The width of the box is the width of the wood you build it from. Inside the Box, you then insert padding, to pad the box out. Make that box the body, when making the box, the width is the size of the box. The magin is an area around the box that stops it going too close to something around it. The width therefore is the width of the box, and not of the area around it. On a piece of paper, you have the magin. The width of the page is the area inside the margin, because if you set something in side it to be the width of the page and it included the margin, you would have it cut off. The margin is there so that you boarder the content with white space.

Tell me how putting padding around a box makes sense? Tell me how putting margin inside a box makes sense? Then tell me that is logical.

There are advantages to both "box models", but the point is Internet Explorer uses the wrong one.

If IE wants to use the open standards (HTML, XML, CSS, DOM) which are created by the w3c then it should do use them correctly.

Originally Posted by Jonny There are advantages to both "box models", but the point is Internet Explorer uses the wrong one.

And why would that be? Are you saying that my analogy is wrong? When making a wooden box do you put the padding on the outside? Because if so, I have been doing it wrong... Do you put content in Margins? Beacuse again, I was obviously wrong last time I wrote a letter and had all the text between the margins?

Originally Posted by Jonny If IE wants to use the open standards (HTML, XML, CSS, DOM) which are created by the w3c then it should do use them correctly.

Ah yes, but Internet Explorer does use HTML, XML, CSS and the DOM. It has for many years. Of course you have to wonder; if this is an Open Standard, then why may I ask do you expect Internet Explorer to conform to a body? Surely if it is Open, nobody controls it? And as it is an Open Standard, the standard, is how most people use it? Now correct me if I am wrong, but how do most people use the HTML, XML, CSS and the DOM standards? Do they use them as the W3C suggest, or do they use them as Internet Explorer says? Hence; what is the standard? If not the most standard way, the Open and uncontrolled standard is used? And therefore the Open Standard says that the Internet Explorer box model, the one that makes sense and allows you to make a box on the screen 100% width while using padding and margin without having to use any JavaScript Hacks.

Or are you saying it is a controlled standard? And the box model the body that controls the controlled standard suggests, the one that doesn't allow you to put a box across the screen with margin and padding without hacking the width exactly and removing the box's ability to stretch with the browser, or adding five times the code you should?

Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn Tell me how putting padding around a box makes sense? Tell me how putting margin inside a box makes sense? Then tell me that is logical.

because the css defines content width, you said so yourself. the point is also for compatability; if you can get around the illogic of CSS design, than it works everywhere. as we see here, your design doesn't work aorund it, and breaks in certain browsers.

it's to force people to be good ad development.

and in any case they've most likely fixed their box-model screwup in IE 7 so your point is moot. when people start using IE7 en masse you're going to be left with websites that look completely wrong on 90% of the worlds computers.

Even with the JavaScript to sort out the width problem, the ultimate code doesn't even come to half what you suggest

don't take this the wrong way but you seem to have a lot of weird perceptions...the first and most prominent being that you seem to think Javascript has anything at all to do with page layout....JS is for adding functionality like popup menus (although these are possible entirely in CSS anyway). If you rely on Javascript for layout then you're gonna have lots of problems because a lot of people simply have Javascript support turned off.

Originally Posted by jono1 and in any case they've most likely fixed their box-model screwup in IE 7 so your point is moot. when people start using IE7 en masse you're going to be left with websites that look completely wrong on 90% of the worlds computers. don't take this the wrong way but you seem to have a lot of weird perceptions...the first and most prominent being that you seem to think Javascript has anything at all to do with page layout....JS is for adding functionality like popup menus (although these are possible entirely in CSS anyway). If you rely on Javascript for layout then you're gonna have lots of problems because a lot of people simply have Javascript support turned off.

Nah, I am using Internet Explorer 7, the box model is still right

I know! It is great. I don't think JavaScript is to do with Layout perse, CSS is for Layout. As far as I am aware I have only referred to JavaScript in a Layout sense for its use as a way to Hack the stupidity of the W3C's Box model in Browsers that are not Internet Explorer. Perhaps it is possible to do this in CSS, just like perhaps it is possible to do a lot of the Hover effects on my page in CSS. However, for the Description Box specifically it makes sense to use JavaScript to hack the problem out rather than CSS. Firstly because I don't know the first thing about CSS other than how to make stuff look like I want it, which is of course the whole point but the rest I do not know. Secondly because I like JavaScript. Thirdly because a lot of other stuff is being done to the Description through the JavaScript already. It is only three lines of code to sort out the Firefox problem extra. The only reason the JavaScript is positioning the Bar rather than just telling it not to be hidden, is because I can't say for sure the size the header will be when in use. Using JavaScript, I have it perfectly so that the Description bar is where it is everytime, without having to go back to the code for it.

JavaScript of course as you say is used for functionality not layout. In regards to my page, without JavaScript it shows fine. Even without CSS it shows fine. However, without JavaScript, it won't do anything. The page will eventually call up all content through XML Requests, so if JavaScript is turned off the user isn't going to see anything, whether I do the Menu Hovering with JavaScript or not.

However to be honest with you, nobody I care to be seeing my site is going to be having JavaScript off. Somebody who has JavaScript off is either trying very hard to be a prat and succeeding with leaps and bounds, so concerned with Security that they will probably keep Internet Browsing to an minimum anyway - just in case Aliens try to suck their head through the monitor, or also has CSS and Style Tags off so that they can sample the internet of a simpler time. Somebody who doesn't have JavaScript on is stupid, because they are cutting themselves off from the only way the Internet is going to become as functional as the Desktop.

Originally Posted by dereklapp because the css defines content width, you said so yourself. the point is also for compatability; if you can get around the illogic of CSS design, than it works everywhere. as we see here, your design doesn't work aorund it, and breaks in certain browsers. it's to force people to be good ad development.

Padding is content. The point is not for compatability, if the proper box model was on the W3C surely the guys on the 'Open is Better, let's all get High' bandwagon would pick it up between Double Gins and there would be more compatability. Why does anybody want a standard that forces them to think in a way that would get most people institutionalised. You want a standard that thinks like a normal human being, you want a language that pads out a box and protects the content inside from hitting the walls, not a language that pads the outside of a box, to protect the box from hitting things. That makes no sense and anybody would see it.

I don't want a standard that I have to compromise for; especially one that I have to compromise for only to then check it on a proper browser and have to do what I want to for a standard that makes sense. You don't need to force people to be good at development. Developers will be good given practice, and the more developers the better, if those developers are not good they won't go far, if they are they will. The standard is not there to catch them out, it doesn't actually catch them out, all it does is keep them having to work harder and harder to make sense of a standard that is worthless to a fine degree. You don't put flaws in a standard just to keep developers on their toes; if that is meant to be an excuse for the stupidity of the W3C it is not a good one.

I just cannot see how somebody can support a box model that makes no sense; especially as you just then said you have to work around the illogic of CSS. How can you support something you think you have to work around just to use?

Also to point out my design has since worked around the Firefox flaws I originally saw and a few others since. Ultimately though I spent two hours just trying to work out what was wrong with the thing in Firefox, that is how stupid that box model is; the very idea that padding goes outside the box is laughable. If I was costing me money to be here, some idiot whose mother smoked pot while pregnant with him at the W3C would have cost me way too much. Without Firefox and a load of Anarchist pig-dog Linux Folks who back it (not referring to people who back Firefox, referring to that special few who back it purely and simply because it is not Microsoft) that W3C standard would be worthless.

And it should be.

The thing is it's not just Firefox. *every* other browser (barring Lynx etc) displays it correctly. Internet Explorer is the only browser that displays it the way it does. I just don't see how you can continue to tell us that it gets it right all the time when it's simply not.

Originally Posted by jono1 The thing is it's not just Firefox. *every* other browser (barring Lynx etc) displays it correctly. Internet Explorer is the only browser that displays it the way it does. I just don't see how you can continue to tell us that it gets it right all the time when it's simply not.

What I am trying to do is not completely clear to me either... I am saying Internet Explorer is right in its standard. Specifically, in its box model. Whether every other browser (a lot of browsers do make use of the Internet Explorer Engine and build from it, adding features; MSN Explorer most prominantly) does it the wrong way or not does not make the right way wrong? The way that makes sense is right, not the way the W3C says to do it.

Are you saying that when making a box, which though electronically that is what this is, you measure the box out, make it, and add the padding - padding that is there to protect the content - onto the outside of the box? How do you protect content with padding that is outside width of the box?