Mozilla issue while using negative-margin to wrap a float

Discussion in 'CSS' started by Stomme poes, Jan 31, 2008.

0
  1. #1
    O Bikkhus,

    I have a page that I've taken some code I've found here and on SitePoint to make a 100% height page and still have a footer showing. I'm also taking a sidebar that's last in the source (well, before the footer tho), floating it left and then wrapping it up using negative margins.

    The problem is that the current FireFox does not consider this sidebar's height when it grows through either text-enlargement or increasing the content amount. While every other browser (Safari, Opera, IE6 and 7! and Konqueror) as well as Firefox 1.5 show the growing sidebar as pushing the footer further down when longer than the rest of the content, FireFox 2 does not. This may or may not be a bug, but if it is, I need a hack, as many pages do indeed have minimal content (thus the reason for the 100% height design).

    http://stommepoes.nl/Guis/guis2.html (watch out if you're on dial-up-- image heavy)
    http://stommepoes.nl/Guis/guis2.css

    The page is set up like this:
    <doctype, head, etc>
    <body>
    ...
    <container><--is set to flex width and 100% height
    <header></header>
    <wrapper><--- is set to 100% width and floated left
    <stuff></stuff>
    </wrapper>
    <sidebar><--is floated left, set width, negative left margin = width plus some more
    </sidebar>
    </container>
    <footer>stuff</footer>
    ...
    </body>
    </etc>

    I'm using the Paul O'Brien trick where the footer has a set height and then a negative top margin so as to show up on the page. Wrapper and sidebar both have bottom padding to slide behind the footer so the text still shows.

    Mozilla 2+ disregards the sidebar completely-- it can continue to slide down behind the footer and off the bottom of the page forever. I first discovered this on text-enlarge but adding content longer than the main part of the page shows it too, which makes it a problem.

    I have posted this on another forum as well, but as I've taken code from both of these, I throw my hat in here as well.
     
    Stomme poes, Jan 31, 2008 IP
  2. Stomme poes

    Stomme poes Peon

    Messages:
    3,195
    Likes Received:
    136
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    ..and it was the old 2.0.0.8 bug which I didn't recognise because I'd forgotten about it, and I thought I was still using 2.0.0.6 on the 'Blows machine.

    So, page is fine, it was the bug from Firefox 2.0.0.8. : )
     
    Stomme poes, Jan 31, 2008 IP