Originally Posted by dgatwood
As I said, you should probably use min-height
, not height
. By my reading of the thread
from a few months ago, the bug in question involved setting height
to 100%. IIRC, the spec is a little ambiguous about how height
should be handled if your content exceeds a single screen height worth of content, which I'm assuming those test cases that triggered this bug probably did. And I could see how a reader could get confused (though it's still a bug) if that happens.
If it fails in this way with min-height: 100%
and a single-page SVG image, however, then the reader is broken (and this seems much more unlikely). The specification is unambiguous about how that should be handled, and if you find that it does not work on the Sony reader, please file bug reports with Sony. They really need to fix that bug, as designs that include full-page-size images (for things like title pages) are likely to become more and more common as time passes, not less.
Actually, I'm going to have to correct that statement. You must use min-height only
on the innermost div
Because of a rather severe ambiguity in the CSS specification (Thanks, W3C), some browsers treat the parent element's height as zero if it is constrained only by a min-height. I consider that interpretation to be incorrect, but it's a popular interpretation, exhibited by both WebKit and Firefox. *sigh*