Relative positioning Vs. Absolute positioning in the default Clubsite css RRS feed

  • Question

  • User-302016627 posted

    I'm really not that well-versed in .css lingo, but looks like the default ClubSite css uses absolute positioning (everything in pixels, instead of % etc)

    Any thoughts, about why this might've been done? Are there any appreciable benefits of using absolute positioning?

    I was OK with it so long, but the moment I try to put an expandable user-control (like a treeView or smthg. bigger) in the left block.... it hoses the layout, [:(] as described earlier by Caroline here  http://forums.asp.net/thread/1258816.aspx

    I realize, "not putting expandable stuff in the leftblock" is a viable solution, but couldn't help wondering, if the problem might disappear when resorted to realtive positioning ?

    Has anybody converted the default .css to use relative positioning, with other things remaining same?

    I could paypal $0.25 for a copy, provided it has the exact look&feel of the default .css (except relative instead of absolute). Imagine hundreds of users like me, each clamoring for a copy. Ka-ching ![;)]

    All U css-tigers out there...it could be an option worth exploring.[Idea]

    Others, feel free to comment, agree, diss, or express interest !



    Wednesday, July 19, 2006 1:33 PM

All replies

  • User-1653776603 posted

    Your terminology is a bit off in that absolute and relative positioning are features of CSS, both of which work with %, px, em etc.

    The reason the site was built using px based sizing is because its predictable and math works correctly. If you have margins, padding, borders etc, then %ages become a problem as you can't [easily] do math in CSS. You can't really say width= 80%-16px. As margins, padding and borders are in addition to the sizes, it's not really easy to get the effect you want without some nasty machinations.

    Friday, July 28, 2006 6:18 PM