b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Message 5213196 (Thread)

# Hmm.
Well, I've set it up, and it doesn't work alright. I'll think about it.
(, Tue 11 Oct 2005, 23:50, archived)
# Thanks
It's good to know it's not just me being inept. :)
(, Tue 11 Oct 2005, 23:54, archived)
# This is actually something I hate about CSS
which is the problem of getting a box to fit its content. CSS is all hierarchical, so lower level elements can't tell higher level elements (like the boxes they fit inside) what to do, which is supposed to be brilliantly clever somehow, but in reality just creates this tricky problem.

Do you have a known minimum width for your pictures? Or an average width? What you could do is put your text inside another box, an invisible one, of a fixed width, and put that box inside the box with the image in it. That wouldn't do exactly what you want, but it might look alright.
(, Wed 12 Oct 2005, 0:08, archived)
# Shhhhhhh!
Not so loud, the table-haters will hear you!

/secretly agrees


Edit in response to your ninja edit: Well, I could guess at an average width, I suppose. But the whole idea was to set up a picture box that could be used globally throughout the site - thus taking all sorts of sizes...

I'm tempted just to say we simply won't have captions. They're silly captions anyway. :P
(, Wed 12 Oct 2005, 0:11, archived)
# tables aren't actually deprecated, are they?
I thought we were going to have a revised and improved standard for tables at some point. Maybe a table would solve your problem here.
(, Wed 12 Oct 2005, 0:21, archived)
# No
tables aren't deprecated, and everyone seems to forget that.
(, Wed 12 Oct 2005, 0:26, archived)
# Sadly
tables only solve the problem when the width is specified - the same as for divs.

Not to worry. Captionless pictures it is! People can't miss what they never knew existed.
(, Wed 12 Oct 2005, 0:45, archived)