Comments on: Finer details of floats

By: Emil Stenström

Emil Stenström — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:37:45 +0000

@gotMilk: Thanks! I corrected it.

By: gotMilk

gotMilk — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:22:34 +0000

At the end of rule 2:
‘#child2 must be moved below #child2 instead’ should read ‘#child2 must be moved below #child instead’, no? ;)

By: Engraellat de caixes - blog.esbudellat, esbudellant estàndards

Engraellat de caixes - blog.esbudellat, esbudellant estàndards — Sun, 25 May 2008 16:48:06 +0000

[...] Finer details of floats [...]

By: Emil Stenström

Emil Stenström — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:38:06 +0000

@Adedeji Olowe: I’m hoping this site is trying to do that :) Stay tuned.

By: Adedeji Olowe

Adedeji Olowe — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 12:39:00 +0000

Nice article. Is there a place where one could read web standards in plain “English”?

By: a.css, esbudellant estàndards » Engraellat de caixes

a.css, esbudellant estàndards » Engraellat de caixes — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:41:53 +0000

[...] Finer details of floats [...]

By: Emil Stenström

Emil Stenström — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:10:33 +0000

@exe: Yes, once would be enough. The solution chosen was best in the context (avoid hard code, small list or items)

By: exe

exe — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:24:30 +0000

Shouldn't going over it once be enough? Something like this:

Create an array from the list
Create a second array
Loop over the first list once and for each item: if number is odd copy the item to the second list and after that delete the item in the first list.
Print each list in the correct wrapper.

By: Emil Stenström

Emil Stenström — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:27:44 +0000

@Jennifer Grucza: I ended up looping over the list twice server-side and build two lists of content. Each list was wrapped in a div and of course displayed appropriately. I’m pretty sure it can be done using some other method but I simply didn’t have the time to experiment more. This made everything work like it should except none styled browsers, they got the content in the wrong order.

By: Jennifer Grucza

Jennifer Grucza — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:32:03 +0000

So, just curious, what did you end up doing to get the layout you wanted?

By: Emil Stenström

Emil Stenström — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:12:49 +0000

I think the reason for this rule has to do with making the rendering faster. Progressive rendering perhaps?

It’s not too bad in my opinion, putting the boxes in two “column divs” was easy enough (even though that gives another source order).

As long as browsers render things _one_ way, whether that way is good or bad, I’m all happy :)

By: Rowan Lewis

Rowan Lewis — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 04:32:55 +0000

Let me explain a little more, by doing this they have removed a chance to make CSS more flexible, what they should have done is written it to behave like Internet Explorer unless

clear: *;

had been set.

This would let us choose how we want the design to work, because I can see that both options are useful.

By: Skalman

Skalman — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:59:09 +0000

I don’t agree with Rowan. I think it’s a bit obvious. The specs are logical this way, and I can’t think why it shouldn’t be that way.

I agree that it could be a problem, and I believe there isn’t a solution, without JavaScript, or some kind of future conditional CSS.

By: Rowan Lewis

Rowan Lewis — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:01:24 +0000

Its things like this that make me think the w3c got it wrong…

But its too late to complain now :(

By: Mark C.

Mark C. — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 18:08:21 +0000

Somthimes you will find strange stuff happening.
Thanks for the tip