height="100%"

[dorayme]

You pretentious schmuck!

What's pretentious about that? Do you think I try to do things _wrong_
when I do them?
[/QUOTE]

You have an interesting and wilful way of misinterpreting everything.
That is why I am very anxious to get your brain onto my lab table. On
this particular point, you commit the fallacy of Hysteria Elenchi, a
logical fallacy that I have written elsewhere about. This fault is
arguing that B is obviously bad, B reminds you of A and therefore A is
bad.

Listen up, it was you saying how great you were rather than you being
great that makes you a schmuck. You try to do things right! And is there
something wrong with this? For God's sake!

Please Dear God Almighty, please make him send a small scoop of brain
material for examination in my lab.

 

[dorayme]

I think the idea is just that "the containing block" is a rectangle, not
an element, or an object of some type defined by CSS.

I note the rest of your post but will comment only on this bit by
letting you have a snippet of a paragraph of my draft of my deep studies
on Root Theory, I have highlighted the relevant paragraphs for your
convenience:

<http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/rootStudiesSnippetDraft.html>

It may turn out that my studies on root theory will never be completed
in my lifetime and I will be reduced to releasing sneak previews of
tiny segments of drafts.

 

[dorayme]

If that were true then God saying, "I am The Lord thy God; thou shall
have no other gods before Me," must make Him the all-time number 1
loser.

Well, actually this is not a bad point. The stakes for God are very
high. For God, there is no room for error. His existence is like a
balloon filled with Goodness and Power. Any diminution of His Goodness
or Power, if they are not present in the greatest amount possible, would
cause that balloon to be less than fully extended.

Now we know that existence is at least like pregnancy*, you are either
pregnant or not. A thing exists or it does not. And since we can see He
cannot fully exist (His balloon being slightly deflated as you
indicate), then He does not exist.

 

[dorayme]

I think the idea is just that "the containing block" is a rectangle, not
an element, or an object of some type defined by CSS.

It now occurs to me, following your point, that it is *possible* that
the reason that the designers of the CSS specifically talk of a
rectangle and not simply the viewport is in case some browser decides
not to have a rectangular viewport (I assume you have seen remarks on
this from my last post).

It needs a rectangular object as containing block because the root
element can have margins and paddings*. And imagine the problems if the
containing block was not rectangular.

To tell the truth, I have little idea why the root element can have
margins and paddings or even borders, perhaps there is room being left
to designers to do things which otherwise cannot be done. Would not mind
knowing more about this. But I do not hold out much hope, all this stuff
is not much talked about around these parts and anyone who does is
likely to be thought crazy.

 

[dorayme]

To tell the truth, I have little idea why the root element can have
margins and paddings or even borders, perhaps there is room being left
to designers to do things which otherwise cannot be done.

Indeed-- they can always put those on BODY again and if they want more
turtles can just add more DIVs.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, turtles in that direction is easy to understand. It is claims that
there are turtles in the other direction (meaning no ultimate root) that
might raise eyebrows <g>

You can simulate a non-rectangular viewport using floats (see Meyer's
"slantastic" demo etc.). You'd need to put all those floats inside a
fixed position and overflow: scroll container.

I am a bit of a dabbler in div art myself, it's a lot of fun.

 

[the_mighty_snap_dragon]

If I were to create an image <img src="..." width="100%" height="100%"/> the with would span the entire width of its container but the height

does not span the entire height.  Why, and how can I change this?

100% height is 100% of the actual picutre size, so if its 200 pixels
high, then your image will display 200px high if you say 100%. It will
not stretch to fill 100% height of the container it is in.

Also, the 100% height property of say table cells doesn't function if
you have any DOCTYPE tag set at the top of your page as its regarded
as an invalid tag in the specification for the doctype.

If you want it to fill the container, then you need to set it in
pixels to whatever the height of the container is. If your container
is of a variable height then you will need some javascript to manually
set the height of the image using the onLoad="" event of the body tag.

If it was a div for example then your onload code needs to do
something like document.getElementById('imgID').height =
document.getElementById('divID').offsetHeight;

Regards,
John