Agreed. Although I am prone to see it as incomplete rather than flat-out
wrong, perhaps a distinction without a difference, but a distinction
nonetheless. :-)

--

Walt


"Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
news:g6a8fu$j8o$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> margin:0 auto, with no width.
>
> --
> Murray --- ICQ 71997575
> Adobe Community Expert
> (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
> ==================
> http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
> http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
> ==================
>
>
> "Michael Fesser" <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:9n8h84panj56e4u4f2llmnsolef76a2vds@4ax.com...
>> .oO(Murray *ACE*)
>>
>>>Not at all. It was your earlier suggestion that was flawed.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> Micha
>

..oO(Murray *ACE*)

>margin:0 auto, with no width.

Ah, OK. ;)

<excuse mode="lame">
The use of 'width' was implied, because it was totally obvious.
</excuse>

Micha

"Michael Fesser" <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:p3hh84dnifidcu7jq22ibdg00slemckpmn@4ax.com...
> .oO(Murray *ACE*)
>
>>margin:0 auto, with no width.
>
> Ah, OK. ;)
>
> <excuse mode="lame">
> The use of 'width' was implied, because it was totally obvious.
> </excuse>
>
> Micha

I got that I needed a fixed width, don't worry. It worked well in both
browsers. ;)

"Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
news:g6a2vm$dbc$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>> Naturally, because <div> can't hug content like tables can.
>
> This is not a detriment.

In what way is it a positive?

>> Why does no width have to mean 100% width?
>
> That's how all block tags work (<p>, <h#>, <div>, etc.).

Didn't say it wasn't. Merely asked why it was so. The logic behind it, if
you will.

Honestly, what is there to be gained by forcing 100% width on anything
without width specified, when human logic would call for it to adopt the
width of the content? Like tables do.

>> I can't think of any good reason why divs can't hug content the way
>> tables do, UNLESS they're specified to be 100% wide.
>
> You are tilting at windmills as a way of avoiding the truth of HTML.

I'm not avoiding anything; I'm asking questions you have no answers for.
There's a difference.

You clearly accept convention for what it is, and I respect that. But don't
go pitying the windmill tilters. For it is us who demanded CSS be invented
in the first place. ;-)

Others would have been happy 'accepting the truth of HTML'... and use
individual font tags forever.

To each their own. ;-)

..oO(Murray *ACE*)

>Return very_lame.

Invalid return value.

Micha

..oO(mjs)

>>> Why does no width have to mean 100% width?
>>
>> That's how all block tags work (<p>, <h#>, <div>, etc.).
>
>Didn't say it wasn't. Merely asked why it was so. The logic behind it, if
>you will.
>
>Honestly, what is there to be gained by forcing 100% width on anything
>without width specified, when human logic would call for it to adopt the
>width of the content? Like tables do.

It's the intended nature of HTML. On graphical displays it always
spreads across the entire available width until specified otherwise.
This is what block-level elements do by default. Your intended shrink-
to-fit behaviour can be accomplished with inline-blocks or floats.

>>> I can't think of any good reason why divs can't hug content the way
>>> tables do, UNLESS they're specified to be 100% wide.
>>
>> You are tilting at windmills as a way of avoiding the truth of HTML.
>
>I'm not avoiding anything; I'm asking questions you have no answers for.
>There's a difference.

The answer is: A div is not a table. HTML tables are quite special
beasts and behave very differently, compared to the other elements. They
are somewhat unique, while all other block-level elements share a common
and reliable default behaviour.

Micha