«

Hi
I have been trying to understand a thread Re: Help needed with css layout
problems posted 21/03/006

http://homepage.ntlworld.ie/spartani...S/masthead.htm

I removed the empty div using FF developer toolbar (great thing that
toolbar) and to my surprise the logo on the left disappeared as did the blue
coloured background of the parent masthead div and the 1px white line of the
child div. I solved the problem of why the logo goes - it's white letters,
therefore not seen without the blue backgound, and the white line goes
because it's the background colour of the empty div I've just removed.

#masthead div{clear:both;height:1px;background:#fff;font:0\0 }

The clear:both is obviously doing a lot of work here but why does it's
presence mean the blue background of the parent masthead div gets displayed
and not without it?

Is the greater specificity the reason why this white background does not get
over ruled by the blue background of the parent masthead div or it simply
due to the stacking order i.e. the child div is more infront than the parent
div?

Hope Mr Spartanicus is around or one of the guru's

thanks for any help
David

On 09/04/2006 11:10, David Graham wrote:

[snip]

> http://homepage.ntlworld.ie/spartani...S/masthead.htm

[snip]

> #masthead div{clear:both;height:1px;background:#fff;font:0\0 }
^^^
The backslash in that font declaration should be a forward slash, by the
way. I know: it's Spartanicus' code.

> The clear:both is obviously doing a lot of work here but why does
> it's presence mean the blue background of the parent masthead div
> gets displayed and not without it?

Much of the content of that masthead is floated, and floats are taken
out of the flow. The result is that they don't take up any vertical
space, as far as the containing div element is concerned, so it
collapses. Specifying the both value for the clear property forces the
inner div element below the floats, stretching the container in the
process.

> Is the greater specificity the reason why this white background does
> not get over ruled by the blue background of the parent masthead div
> or it simply due to the stacking order i.e. the child div is more
> infront than the parent div?

The latter.

> Hope Mr Spartanicus is around or one of the guru's

I believe you meant, "one of the _other_ guru's". I think Spartanicus
qualifies as one himself.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

Michael Winter <> wrote:

>> http://homepage.ntlworld.ie/spartani...S/masthead.htm
>
>[snip]
>
>> #masthead div{clear:both;height:1px;background:#fff;font:0\0 }
> ^^^
>The backslash in that font declaration should be a forward slash, by the
>way.

It should not, it's a hack to get IE to play ball IIRC.

--
Spartanicus

On 09/04/2006 14:53, Spartanicus wrote:

> Michael Winter <> wrote:

[snip]

>>> #masthead div{clear:both;height:1px;background:#fff;font:0\0 }
>> ^^^
>> The backslash in that font declaration should be a forward slash,
>> by the way.
>
> It should not,

OK, fair enough. I thought you were trying to set both font size and
line height to zero, but made a typo. But, looking at it again, it would
also be missing a font family (which is required, of course).

> it's a hack to get IE to play ball IIRC.
^^^^
You mean you can't remember? :-p

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

Michael Winter <> wrote:

>> it's a hack to get IE to play ball IIRC.
> ^^^^
>You mean you can't remember? :-p

http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec={8F1A77FC-89E8-11D4-8351-00C04FC2C2BF}

--
Spartanicus

Michael Winter wrote:
> David Graham wrote:
>
>> Hope Mr Spartanicus is around or one of the guru's
>
> I believe you meant, "one of the _other_ guru's".

Argh! How can you post a correction, but ignore the most obvious error?!

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

"Spartanicus" <> wrote in message
news: anicus.utvinternet.ie...
> Michael Winter <> wrote:
>
> >> it's a hack to get IE to play ball IIRC.
> > ^^^^
> >You mean you can't remember? :-p
>
>
http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec={8F1A77FC-89E8-11D4-8351-00C04
FC2C2BF}
>
> --
> Spartanicus

Thanks to Michael and Spartanicus - I'm sure you both qualify for guru
status. I'm not sure what Spartanicus is trying to hack with the font thing,
I've come across many different types of hacks but not this one - any
explanation please about what IE does not do without this hack?
thanks again
David

On 09/04/2006 17:45, Toby Inkster wrote:

> Michael Winter wrote:

[snip]

>> I believe you meant, "one of the _other_ guru's".
>
> Argh! How can you post a correction, but ignore the most obvious
> error?!

I blame copy-and-paste.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

"Toby Inkster" <> wrote in message
news:gaqng3-...
> Michael Winter wrote:
> > David Graham wrote:
> >
> >> Hope Mr Spartanicus is around or one of the guru's
> >
> > I believe you meant, "one of the _other_ guru's".
>
> Argh! How can you post a correction, but ignore the most obvious error?!
>
> --
> Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
> Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
>
For the not so well informed - what is the obvious error?
bye
David

David Graham wrote:
>> >
>> > I believe you meant, "one of the _other_ guru's".
>>
>> Argh! How can you post a correction, but ignore the most obvious error?!
>>
> For the not so well informed - what is the obvious error?
>
It should be "gurus" not "guru's".
It's an extension of the "it's" vs "its" controversy.

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