Re: CSS liquid layout - can"t achieve correct sizing

On 2007-12-18, dorayme wrote:
> In article ,
> Ben C wrote:
>
>> >> dorayme has a webpage about containment of descendent floats with some
>> >> examples but I can't find the url.
>> >
>> > It is (in its unfinishedness) at:
>> >
>> > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page1.html
>>
>> That's more about float placing. I meant the other one. You had a box
>> with some floats in it and some parables about parents ignoring their
>> children.
>
> Ah... you mean:
>
> http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouseOfAlice/normalHouse.html

Yes that's the one I was thinking of.

> I found it still on the server. Well, that one was just an
> earlier version of the longer one. You have to read the longer
> one on a bit to see that it *is* concerned about how to think
> about parents, floated children and height.

You're right, I had forgotten that. I only remembered the next bit about
how floats and inlines arrange themselves.

In fact there's some good stuff there about container heights between
about pages 3 and 5 which might be useful to the OP to look at.

Re: CSS liquid layout - can"t achieve correct sizing

In article ,
Ben C wrote:

> On 2007-12-18, dorayme wrote:
> > In article ,
> > Ben C wrote:
> >
> >> >> dorayme has a webpage about containment of descendent floats with some
> >> >> examples but I can't find the url.
> >> >
> >> > It is (in its unfinishedness) at:
> >> >
> >> > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page1.html
> >>
> >> That's more about float placing. I meant the other one. You had a box
> >> with some floats in it and some parables about parents ignoring their
> >> children.
> >
> > Ah... you mean:
> >
> > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouseOfAlice/normalHouse.html
>
> Yes that's the one I was thinking of.
>
> > I found it still on the server. Well, that one was just an
> > earlier version of the longer one. You have to read the longer
> > one on a bit to see that it *is* concerned about how to think
> > about parents, floated children and height.
>
> You're right, I had forgotten that. I only remembered the next bit about
> how floats and inlines arrange themselves.
>
> In fact there's some good stuff there about container heights between
> about pages 3 and 5 which might be useful to the OP to look at.

I now need to incorporate some things about these block
formatting contexts of which you (and rf) speak. Interesting
stuff. I am thinking of ditching a lot of stuff about browser
differences, these differences simply take up all of one's time!
I wish the W3C had made their own browser to follow their own
standards. Then everyone would see at a glance how IE and Safari
and FF measure up to the standard.

--
dorayme

Re: CSS liquid layout - can"t achieve correct sizing

On 2007-12-19, dorayme wrote:
> In article ,
> Ben C wrote:
[...]
>> >> > It is (in its unfinishedness) at:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page1.html
>> >>
>> >> That's more about float placing. I meant the other one. You had a box
>> >> with some floats in it and some parables about parents ignoring their
>> >> children.
>> >
>> > Ah... you mean:
>> >
>> > http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouseOfAlice/normalHouse.html
>>
>> Yes that's the one I was thinking of.
>>
>> > I found it still on the server. Well, that one was just an
>> > earlier version of the longer one. You have to read the longer
>> > one on a bit to see that it *is* concerned about how to think
>> > about parents, floated children and height.
>>
>> You're right, I had forgotten that. I only remembered the next bit about
>> how floats and inlines arrange themselves.
>>
>> In fact there's some good stuff there about container heights between
>> about pages 3 and 5 which might be useful to the OP to look at.
>
> I now need to incorporate some things about these block
> formatting contexts of which you (and rf) speak. Interesting
> stuff.

Yes. The idea there is that they limit the scope of floats. Usually
floats spill out of their containers and anything inline that's in the
way has to flow around them.

Block formatting contexts limit the damage. A float never sticks out of
one or into one. Clear refers to floats within your own BFC. A BFC is
the smallest guaranteed "sealed environment" for floats. All the other
rules for BFCs can be understood in terms of this basic idea.

The purpose of block formatting contexts is floats, they aren't relevant
to anything else that I can see. They might have been named "float
contexts" instead, perhaps less confusingly.

> I am thinking of ditching a lot of stuff about browser
> differences, these differences simply take up all of one's time!

Yes, good plan. That's a separate document (to put off writing until
people have stopped using IE anyway). Although you might want to make
brief mention of the Firefox/IE7 shared non-conformance of always
putting floats in the next line if there are any inlines preceding them,
since that's quite a big one.

> I wish the W3C had made their own browser to follow their own
> standards.

I think that's what Amaya was meant to be, but it is hopeless at
following the standards getting basic things completely wrong. The
authoring tool side of it is said to be not bad however if you like that
kind of thing.

> Then everyone would see at a glance how IE and Safari and FF measure
> up to the standard.

Certainly a proper reference implementation would be good. For one thing
it would prove whether it was actually possible.

Re: CSS liquid layout - can"t achieve correct sizing

In article ,
Ben C wrote:

> The purpose of block formatting contexts is floats, they aren't relevant
> to anything else that I can see. They might have been named "float
> contexts" instead, perhaps less confusingly.

OK. So when I am thinking and saying things like containers are
normally blind to their floated children, except for some IE
family containers (which auto grow height for them), I will be
adding that there is an official way to cause parents to see
their floated children, namely to trigger a BFC. An author can
always specify a height: but this "covering of the children" is
mere forcing the blind parent to provide something, it shows no
inner awareness (as it were) of the floated children. However, an
author giving the container a BFC gives the parent a more inner
intelligence, an awareness that can fend for itself, in effect,
it covers its floated children all by itself once the author has
triggered some genes in it...

Just thinking aloud...

> > I am thinking of ditching a lot of stuff about browser
> > differences, these differences simply take up all of one's time!
>
> Yes, good plan. That's a separate document (to put off writing until
> people have stopped using IE anyway). Although you might want to make
> brief mention of the Firefox/IE7 shared non-conformance of always
> putting floats in the next line if there are any inlines preceding them,
> since that's quite a big one.
>

And, of course, there is the ever present danger in these things
that I don't know what browser a reader might be using to read my
efforts. So some stuff about browsers will be inevitable

> > I wish the W3C had made their own browser to follow their own
> > standards.
>
> I think that's what Amaya was meant to be, but it is hopeless at
> following the standards getting basic things completely wrong. The
> authoring tool side of it is said to be not bad however if you like that
> kind of thing.
>
> > Then everyone would see at a glance how IE and Safari and FF measure
> > up to the standard.
>
> Certainly a proper reference implementation would be good. For one thing
> it would prove whether it was actually possible.

I like this thought of yours. Damn good one, is it really
possible to follow the standards as written? It may not be. (In
fact, it is *probably not possible* under some rigid
interpretation ).

--
dorayme

Re: CSS liquid layout - can"t achieve correct sizing

On 2007-12-19, dorayme wrote:
> In article ,
> Ben C wrote:
>
>> The purpose of block formatting contexts is floats, they aren't relevant
>> to anything else that I can see. They might have been named "float
>> contexts" instead, perhaps less confusingly.
>
> OK. So when I am thinking and saying things like containers are
> normally blind to their floated children, except for some IE
> family containers (which auto grow height for them), I will be
> adding that there is an official way to cause parents to see
> their floated children, namely to trigger a BFC. An author can
> always specify a height: but this "covering of the children" is
> mere forcing the blind parent to provide something, it shows no
> inner awareness (as it were) of the floated children. However, an
> author giving the container a BFC gives the parent a more inner
> intelligence, an awareness that can fend for itself, in effect,
> it covers its floated children all by itself once the author has
> triggered some genes in it...
>
> Just thinking aloud...

That kind of thing, but don't forget that it's descendents, not just
children. As soon as a container is a BFC it wraps up any floats that
originate anywhere in the tree of nested containers inside it.
Furthermore it gets out of the way itself of any nearby floats from
other BFCs that might otherwise encroach over its borders.

Looking up the tree, every box has a "containing block" somewhere above
it, and a "block formatting context", which may be the same block as the
containing block but is often one much higher up the tree.

Re: CSS liquid layout - can"t achieve correct sizing

In article ,
Ben C wrote:

> On 2007-12-19, dorayme wrote:
> > In article ,
> > Ben C wrote:
> >
> >> The purpose of block formatting contexts is floats, they aren't relevant
> >> to anything else that I can see. They might have been named "float
> >> contexts" instead, perhaps less confusingly.
> >
> > OK. So when I am thinking and saying things like containers are
> > normally blind to their floated children, except for some IE
> > family containers (which auto grow height for them), I will be
> > adding that there is an official way to cause parents to see
> > their floated children, namely to trigger a BFC. An author can
> > always specify a height: but this "covering of the children" is
> > mere forcing the blind parent to provide something, it shows no
> > inner awareness (as it were) of the floated children. However, an
> > author giving the container a BFC gives the parent a more inner
> > intelligence, an awareness that can fend for itself, in effect,
> > it covers its floated children all by itself once the author has
> > triggered some genes in it...
> >
> > Just thinking aloud...
>
> That kind of thing, but don't forget that it's descendents, not just
> children. As soon as a container is a BFC it wraps up any floats that
> originate anywhere in the tree of nested containers inside it.
> Furthermore it gets out of the way itself of any nearby floats from
> other BFCs that might otherwise encroach over its borders.

I won't forget. The imagery is forming in my mind. A BFC is one
hell of a parent, possessive, caring, watchful of others...

--
dorayme