> Naturally, because <div> can't hug content like tables can.

This is not a detriment.

> Why does no width have to mean 100% width?

That's how all block tags work (<p>, <h#>, <div>, etc.).

> I can't think of any good reason why divs can't hug content the way tables
> do, UNLESS they're specified to be 100% wide.

You are tilting at windmills as a way of avoiding the truth of HTML.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================


"mjs" <no@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:g6a29l$cie$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Naturally, because <div> can't hug content like tables can. They're either
> 100% wide, or have a static value.
>
> Another limitation of divs that seems unnecessary to me. Why does no width
> have to mean 100% width? We accept these realities as they are but never
> question them. I can't think of any good reason why divs can't hug content
> the way tables do, UNLESS they're specified to be 100% wide.
>
> "David Powers" <david@example.com> wrote in message
> news:g69nn1$17s$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>> Walt F. Schaefer wrote:
>>> margin: 0 auto;
>>
>> For this to work, the element (<div>) needs a declared width. Without a
>> width, the element remains on the left of the page.
>
>