473,320 Members | 1,945 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,320 software developers and data experts.

How to make footer at the bottom in 5 box 3 columns layout

The site design is pretty simple:

============================================
| Head |
============================================
| | | |
| | | |
| left | center | right |
| | | |
| | | |
============================================
| Footer |
============================================

I wasted a whole month of my life with frustrating CSS layout try and
error (IE margin hack, quirk quark, float problems, IE peekaboo, etc.,
etc.).

So I ended up using a simple table layout as it is easy as 1,2,3 and
is liquid as it can be.

But... How can I force the footer to stay at the bottom of browser
even if few content does not push it to the bottom. Is there any
chance with a combination of CSS and tables? Please no frame or
scripting. Impossible?

Any help would be very much appreciated.

Peter.
Jul 20 '05
82 10571
Harlan Messinger wrote:
[snip]
Are you saying that millions of web designers around the world are
wrong to be doing it the way virtually all of them do it, and only
you have the Correct, Enlightened approach? 'Cause if everyone were
doing it the way you say is the correct way, then surely you would
have found millions of resources telling you how to do it, and all
the major browsers would support it.

[snip]

If there are millions of web designers involved in 5-box 3-column layouts,
then their consensus is:

- A banner at the top. This identifies the web site. Below this:

- 3 columns, typically site-navigation, an article, and side-notes (for
supplementary material) on the right.

- Adminstrative material at the bottom of the content, where it is available
if needed, but doesn't otherwise clutter up the main view.

That is how I read the original post. If that was the intent, it makes lots of
sense. It is a web equivalent of rather different layout on paper, but
catering for the special nature of the web. It works very well.

Trying to fit things into the viewport is very dodgy. The CSS2 recommendation
attempted this, and frankly screwed up. See:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visure...ed-positioning

I put their proposal into a web page, and it doesn't work properly:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...s2_example.htm

I don't think those W3C people were really into page layout!

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #51
> Why do you think a browser is supposed to look like a book?

Well... why not (regarding the footer)? Again, please do not ride on
definitions. I just wanted a footer, not endless debates. Why are you
chatting around about this and that. If you do not have a solution for
the OP, stop chatting in this thread, please.

Are you saying that millions of web designers around the world are wrong to
be doing it the way virtually all of them do it, and only you have the
Correct, Enlightened approach? 'Cause if everyone were doing it the way you
say is the correct way, then surely you would have found millions of
resources telling you how to do it, and all the major browsers would support
it.
I do not understand what you mean, but *I* like a footer at the bottom
of the browser. Period.

By invoking
Word you are not explaining why you think that in a browser window, the
footer should appear fixed at the bottom of the window instead of flowing at the bottom of the document.


Must I explain the reason why want the footer at the botton before I
get the answer how to do it?

Then you must be horrified by all the short pages you see on the web.
Depends on the layout. If the footer would have a dark background,
indeed I would be horrorfied.

Apparently those of us you're conversing with here don't thing anything is
wrong with it.


I never asked for other opinions with my OP. Just for a trick to do
footers.

I give up now. What strange forum here. I am impressed by the
responsiveness on the one hand but what is it worth if the net output
is below zero?! Just look at this thread from the beginning and you
all will shake your heads.

Have a nice day.

Peter.
Jul 20 '05 #52
On 2 Mar 2004 15:26:46 -0800, Peter Diedrich <pd*******@gmx.de> wrote:
I never asked for other opinions with my OP. Just for a trick to do
footers.
And I've given you two. Tables and framesets.
I give up now. What strange forum here. I am impressed by the
responsiveness on the one hand but what is it worth if the net output
is below zero?! Just look at this thread from the beginning and you
all will shake your heads.

Have a nice day.


Either you are a troll or you really have no clue that I gave you two
solutions to your problem.
Jul 20 '05 #53
On 2 Mar 2004 15:26:46 -0800, pd*******@gmx.de (Peter Diedrich) declared
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
If you do not have a solution for the OP, stop chatting in this thread, please.
Sorry, this is Usenet. Or did I miss the post where you sent us your
credit card details?
Must I explain the reason why want the footer at the botton before I
get the answer how to do it?
You have already been given the possible solutions numerous times, along
with the problems they cause.
Depends on the layout. If the footer would have a dark background,
indeed I would be horrorfied.
So give the page a dark background too. Then if the page is longer than
the viewport, there's no difference, if it is shorter than the viewport
the footer doesn't look out of place.
I never asked for other opinions with my OP. Just for a trick to do
footers.
Again, this is Usenet. Not your 24-hour helpdesk.
I give up now. What strange forum here. I am impressed by the
responsiveness on the one hand but what is it worth if the net output
is below zero?! Just look at this thread from the beginning and you
all will shake your heads.
Indeed I am. You have been told that it isn't a good idea to even try.
You have also been given the possible solutions, but you just don't want
to listen. If you want someone to tell you what you want to hear, pay
them.
Have a nice day.


I will. :-)

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 20 '05 #54
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Peter Diedrich wrote:
I give up now. What strange forum here. I am impressed by the
responsiveness on the one hand but what is it worth if the net output
is below zero?! Just look at this thread from the beginning and you
all will shake your heads.


The discussion seems to have been compleely wasted on you.
Usenet has a logical way of dealing with that. Bye.

--
Maybe footers of books should be at the bottom of the bookcase. -Kris

Jul 20 '05 #55
On 2 Mar 2004 09:57:22 -0800, pd*******@gmx.de (Peter Diedrich) wrote:

[...]
It would be soooo great if instead of chatting funny things about
everything senseless, that someone could *finally* help with the
problem...


Since it seems like the rest of the thread is getting tired of you,
would you settle for this example and then go away into contemplation
for a while?

http://www.css.nu/exp/nf-illustration.html

This page has its flaws in some areas but it should give you a hint on
how to tackle your specific "problem" (and also why it will not work in
all places)

The page it self is also a very good trigger of MS-IE bugs, i.e. it just
does not work as intended in any known version of MS-IE. Still, the
example page conforms to HTML and CSS rec's and can be viewed as
intended in at least Mozilla and Opera.

--
Rex

Jul 20 '05 #56
On 2 Mar 2004 10:36:27 -0800, pd*******@gmx.de (Peter Diedrich) wrote:
Yes, this would exactly be my definition. A page should work on IE4.
Gotcha :-)

I would be attracted to bet with you a Whopper that more people are
using IE4 vs. a text browser.


The difference being that people using IE4 have, by and large, the
option of upgrading to another graphical browser. Whereas many people
using a text browser or analogous technology are doing so because they
do not have the option of upgrading or restoring their eyesight. That
difference is important.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #57
On 2 Mar 2004 10:11:27 -0800, pd*******@gmx.de (Peter Diedrich) wrote:
Actually no. I don't see a status bar, or any other sort of footer.
Though it's true I could put one there if I wanted to.
But your question was about documents within the browser window, so what
is your point?
You definitely know what I mean.


Your use of terms is so loose that I am really beginning to doubt that
*you* know what you mean.

>* Look at 90% of industry standard websites. What do you see? A footer
>at the bottom of each page


What you are talking about? Show me *one* site that produces a footer at
the bottom of each printed page.


http://www.wired.com/animation/


You mean the yellow bar? I'm not sure exactly what this page is doing,
but when I change my paper size, that bar comes out at the top of the
next page, so it's not a printed-page footer.
...plus thousands more.


Odd you failed to show me one, then.

Yes - a footer at the bottom of each *web* page. Precisely. No problems
there.
But you were asking for a footer at the bottom of the *window* - weren't
you?


Of course of every *web* page. Have I not posted to "authoring.html"?


Let's just try to get this straight. Do you actually understand the
difference between the following concepts:

- a GUI window
- a web page
- a printed page.

Because it very much looks as if you don't, given the way you muddle
them up in your posts.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #58
In article <82*************************@posting.google.com> ,
pd*******@gmx.de (Peter Diedrich) wrote:
Why do you think a browser is supposed to look like a book?
Well... why not (regarding the footer)? Again, please do not ride on
definitions. I just wanted a footer, not endless debates. Why are you
chatting around about this and that. If you do not have a solution for
the OP, stop chatting in this thread, please.


You confuse Usenet for a helpdesk.
Must I explain the reason why want the footer at the botton before I
get the answer how to do it?


You are a designer, aren't you? Oh wait, you are an _artist_. [bows]

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
Jul 20 '05 #59
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:06:29 +0100, Stephen Poley
<sb******************@xs4all.nl> declared in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
The difference being that people using IE4 have, by and large, the
option of upgrading to another graphical browser.


....and no doubt will do as time goes on. Even if there are more users of
IE4 than text browsers at the moment, the market share of IE4 is only
going to go down, while that of text browsers is likely to increase.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 20 '05 #60
"Mark Parnell" <we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:t5*****************************@40tude.net...
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:06:29 +0100, Stephen Poley
<sb******************@xs4all.nl> declared in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
The difference being that people using IE4 have, by and large, the
option of upgrading to another graphical browser.


...and no doubt will do as time goes on. Even if there are more users of
IE4 than text browsers at the moment, the market share of IE4 is only
going to go down, while that of text browsers is likely to increase.


Unfortunately time goes slowly.

- It is likely that Windows XP will have a lifetime similar to Windows
95/98. So we will have to live with the presence of the current
implementation of IE6 for the next 5 to 10 years.
- Netscape 4 is still distributed by some ISPs with their starter packs! As
Mozilla runs very slow and unstable on Mac OS 9 systems, we will also have
to live with the presence of Netscape 4 and Mac IE 5 until the last Mac user
has bought a G5 box with OS X.

--
Markus
Jul 20 '05 #61
"Peter Diedrich" <pd*******@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:82*************************@posting.google.co m...
The site design is pretty simple:

============================================
| Head |
============================================
| | | |
| | | |
| left | center | right |
| | | |
| | | |
============================================
| Footer |
============================================


My summary of the discussion:

1. There is a kind of screen layout that some people would like to do.
2. They would like to do it with CSS rather than tables.
3. It is not or hardly possible with CSS.

There are 2 possible conclusions:
1. CSS is not sufficient, it has to be extended to fit the people's needs.
2. What these people want is stupid because it is not possible with CSS.

Now this could be stored somewhere as a FDI (frequently debated issue).

--
Markus
Jul 20 '05 #62
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:18:38 +0100, Markus Ernst <derernst@NO#SP#AMgmx.ch>
wrote:
"Peter Diedrich" <pd*******@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:82*************************@posting.google.co m...
The site design is pretty simple:

============================================
| Head |
============================================
| | | |
| | | |
| left | center | right |
| | | |
| | | |
============================================
| Footer |
============================================
My summary of the discussion:

1. There is a kind of screen layout that some people would like to do.
2. They would like to do it with CSS rather than tables.
3. It is not or hardly possible with CSS.

There are 2 possible conclusions:
1. CSS is not sufficient, it has to be extended to fit the people's
needs.
2. What these people want is stupid because it is not possible with CSS.


3. CSS2 makes this possible, but support for CSS2 in some browsers is not
up to the job.

An example of the wanted design can be found here:
http://hace.dyndns.org/niwo/index.html

I made that three years ago... Simply floating the left and right
sidebars. Those bars will show at 100% width in Netscape 4, NN4 users can
still see everything.
Now this could be stored somewhere as a FDI (frequently debated issue).


AllMyFaqs would be a suitable place.
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl

--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen
Jul 20 '05 #63
"Markus Ernst" <derernst@NO#SP#AMgmx.ch> wrote:

My summary of the discussion:

1. There is a kind of screen layout that some people would like to do.
2. They would like to do it with CSS rather than tables.
3. It is not or hardly possible with CSS.
4. It is possible with CSS, but Internet Explorer doesn't support the
relevant parts of CSS.

A footer can be positioned at the bottom of the browser window with
either position: fixed (resulting in the same presentation as a frames
based HTML layout) or with display: table (resulting in the same
presentation as a tables based HTML layout) but IE doesn't support
either of those. So complex workarounds must be developed to cope with
IE's failings (as with my previously posted URL).
There are 2 possible conclusions:
1. CSS is not sufficient, it has to be extended to fit the people's needs.
2. What these people want is stupid because it is not possible with CSS.


3. Internet Explorer doesn't have good enough CSS support.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 20 '05 #64
"Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <ri**@opera.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:18:38 +0100, Markus Ernst <derernst@NO#SP#AMgmx.ch>
wrote:
"Peter Diedrich" <pd*******@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:82*************************@posting.google.co m...
The site design is pretty simple:

============================================
| Head |
============================================
| | | |
| | | |
| left | center | right |
| | | |
| | | |
============================================
| Footer |
============================================

There are 2 possible conclusions:
1. CSS is not sufficient, it has to be extended to fit the people's
needs.
2. What these people want is stupid because it is not possible with CSS.


3. CSS2 makes this possible, but support for CSS2 in some browsers is not
up to the job.


Correct. IE is a pain.
An example of the wanted design can be found here:
http://hace.dyndns.org/niwo/index.html


Alas no. A part of the problem here which Markus didn't quote is that
the footer must appear at the bottom of the browser window when there
isn't enough content to fill said window. This (plus full window
height backgrounds for the columns) is what makes the problem
non-trivial.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 20 '05 #65
In article <40**********************@news.easynet.ch>,
"Markus Ernst" <derernst@NO#SP#AMgmx.ch> wrote:
My summary of the discussion:

1. There is a kind of screen layout that some people would like to do.
2. They would like to do it with CSS rather than tables.
3. It is not or hardly possible with CSS.

There are 2 possible conclusions:
1. CSS is not sufficient, it has to be extended to fit the people's needs.
2. What these people want is stupid because it is not possible with CSS.


Replace "because" for "and".
It is not possible with tables and HTML4.01 either, unless you produce
invalid code that produces the effect in some browsers.

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
Jul 20 '05 #66
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 10:46:58 +0000, Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:

...
An example of the wanted design can be found here:
http://hace.dyndns.org/niwo/index.html


Alas no. A part of the problem here which Markus didn't quote is that
the footer must appear at the bottom of the browser window when there
isn't enough content to fill said window. This (plus full window
height backgrounds for the columns) is what makes the problem
non-trivial.


I knew I was missing something :) Note that this makes the problem
non-trivial for noframes HTML-only designs as well.

--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen
Jul 20 '05 #67
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 10:10:10 +0000, Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:

...
A footer can be positioned at the bottom of the browser window with
either position: fixed (resulting in the same presentation as a frames
based HTML layout) or with display: table (resulting in the same
presentation as a tables based HTML layout) but IE doesn't support
either of those. So complex workarounds must be developed to cope with
IE's failings (as with my previously posted URL).
There are 2 possible conclusions:
1. CSS is not sufficient, it has to be extended to fit the people's
needs.
2. What these people want is stupid because it is not possible with CSS.


3. Internet Explorer doesn't have good enough CSS support.


I just tried to make a display: table layout to get the desired effect in
Mozilla and Opera, but I ran into trouble. Opera has some serious issues,
Mozilla looks OK except that I didn't see a way to stretch the table to
the bottom of the viewport when it has little content. Note that
'min-height: 100%;' can only be honored when the containing element has a
specifified height...

--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen
Jul 20 '05 #68
"Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <ri**@opera.com> wrote:
I just tried to make a display: table layout to get the desired effect in
Mozilla and Opera, but I ran into trouble. Opera has some serious issues,
Mozilla looks OK except that I didn't see a way to stretch the table to
the bottom of the viewport when it has little content. Note that
'min-height: 100%;' can only be honored when the containing element has a
specifified height...


http://steve.pugh.net/test/test72a-short.html

Fine in Opera 7.23 but as you report in Mozilla.
The one drawback is that the height of the header and footer must be
specified in % which won't work for all designs.

I can get close but not quite there with a version that combines the
above with some elements from my IE-friendly hackery at
http://steve.pugh.net/test/test57-short.html.

Give me a bit more time and I may be able to crack it.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 20 '05 #69
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 12:54:03 +0000, Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
"Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <ri**@opera.com> wrote:
I just tried to make a display: table layout to get the desired effect
in Mozilla and Opera, but I ran into trouble. Opera has some serious
issues, Mozilla looks OK except that I didn't see a way to stretch the
table to
the bottom of the viewport when it has little content. Note that
'min-height: 100%;' can only be honored when the containing element has
a specifified height...


http://steve.pugh.net/test/test72a-short.html

Fine in Opera 7.23 but as you report in Mozilla.
The one drawback is that the height of the header and footer must be
specified in % which won't work for all designs.

I can get close but not quite there with a version that combines the
above with some elements from my IE-friendly hackery at
http://steve.pugh.net/test/test57-short.html.

Give me a bit more time and I may be able to crack it.


Hmm. It turns out everything is fine in Mozilla (Firefox) if you use
'height' instead of 'min-height'. I can avoid the problems I saw in Opera
as long as I don't use table-row.

Here's what I made of your test:

http://people.opera.com/rijk/test/grid.html

It degrades nicely in MSIE 6 and Netscape 4 :)

--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen
Jul 20 '05 #70
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 10:10:10 +0000, Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
3. Internet Explorer doesn't have good enough CSS support.

Sometimes I feel like Microsoft sold everyone a car that:

1) uses metric bolts, but supplied an English toolkit,
2) was sold in the US but comes with Pakistani roadmaps
3) won't operate on newer highways.

What would we think of an auto manufacturer who did that? Yet the populace
loves Microsoft. Go figure...
Jul 20 '05 #71
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:18:38 +0100, Markus Ernst <derernst@NO#SP#AMgmx.ch>
wrote:
"Peter Diedrich" <pd*******@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:82*************************@posting.google.co m...
The site design is pretty simple:

============================================
| Head |
============================================
| | | |
| | | |
| left | center | right |
| | | |
| | | |
============================================
| Footer |
============================================
My summary of the discussion:

1. There is a kind of screen layout that some people would like to do.
2. They would like to do it with CSS rather than tables.
3. It is not or hardly possible with CSS.


3 is incorrect. It is quite possible, provided browsers were built to
support the standard.
There are 2 possible conclusions:
1. CSS is not sufficient, it has to be extended to fit the people's
needs.
2. What these people want is stupid because it is not possible with CSS.


Neither is true. What people want is not stupid, unless they want
something which simply cannot be done.

And don't blame CSS when it can do these things in a browser built to
support it.

Finally, use of frameset or a tweaked and unusual application of tables
can achieve this. Both have serious drawbacks which make them poor choices
for the web author interested in maximum portability among browsers and
maximum usability of the site by users.
Jul 20 '05 #72
Neal ne*****@spamrcn.com wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 10:10:10 +0000, Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
3. Internet Explorer doesn't have good enough CSS support.

Sometimes I feel like Microsoft sold everyone a car that:

1) uses metric bolts, but supplied an English toolkit,
2) was sold in the US but comes with Pakistani roadmaps
3) won't operate on newer highways.

What would we think of an auto manufacturer who did that? Yet the populace
loves Microsoft. Go figure...


that#s because Microsoft sold the cars to everyone's landlords...you get
the car "free" and pay for it with a rent increase...so everyone loves
Microsoft and everyone moans about the landlord

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"
Jul 20 '05 #73
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:38:23 +0100, "Rijk van Geijtenbeek"
<ri**@opera.com> declared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
http://people.opera.com/rijk/test/grid.html

It degrades nicely in MSIE 6 and Netscape 4 :)


I don't know that I'd say it is all that nice in IE6. Though if you got
rid of that mustard colour it might help. ;-)

At least the content is still accessible, though.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 20 '05 #74
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:32:45 +1100, Mark Parnell
<we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:38:23 +0100, "Rijk van Geijtenbeek"
<ri**@opera.com> declared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
http://people.opera.com/rijk/test/grid.html

It degrades nicely in MSIE 6 and Netscape 4 :)


I don't know that I'd say it is all that nice in IE6. Though if you got
rid of that mustard colour it might help. ;-)

At least the content is still accessible, though.


The three colums are positioned under each other, that's the only
difference with Moz/Opera. In a normal non-mustard colored layout, that
would probably look OK :) And don't blame me, it was Steve who used to
colors :) I usually use bright red, green, yellow, blue and lime
backgrounds in test pages...

--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen
Jul 20 '05 #75
"Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <ri**@opera.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:32:45 +1100, Mark Parnell
<we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:38:23 +0100, "Rijk van Geijtenbeek"
<ri**@opera.com> declared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
http://people.opera.com/rijk/test/grid.html

It degrades nicely in MSIE 6 and Netscape 4 :)


I don't know that I'd say it is all that nice in IE6. Though if you got
rid of that mustard colour it might help. ;-)

At least the content is still accessible, though.


The three colums are positioned under each other, that's the only
difference with Moz/Opera. In a normal non-mustard colored layout, that
would probably look OK :) And don't blame me, it was Steve who used to
colors :) I usually use bright red, green, yellow, blue and lime
backgrounds in test pages...


The mustard is, of course, totally optional. ;-)
In browsers where the styles work as intended the mustard is never
seen anyway, I only included a background for that div for debugging
purposes.

A version with nicer colours and which degrades better in
non-supporting browsers can be seen at
http://steve.pugh.net/test/test72.html

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 20 '05 #76
Michael Wilcox wrote:

IE for Mac has just about as bad of support as it does on Windows.


That statement is not even close to accurate. Have you looked at css
support charts?

--
Brian
Jul 20 '05 #77
Barry Pearson wrote:

layout tables are demonstrably successful, perhaps accounting for
about 99% of the pages on the web, year after year

Advocates of CSS positioning can't hope to prove their point by
showing that layout tables don't work, because they clearly *do*
work.


"tables are good for layout" fffpppttt
"tables are good for layout" fffpppttt
"tables are good for layout" fffpppttt
"tables are good for layout" fffpppttt

Hey, the record is skipping again.

--
Brian
Jul 20 '05 #78
Brian wrote:
Michael Wilcox wrote:

IE for Mac has just about as bad of support as it does on Windows.


That statement is not even close to accurate. Have you looked at css
support charts?


I've seen screenshots from a Mac user of one of my pages that was trying to do
some tricky things with CSS. (My page validated as 4.01 Strict, and the CSS
validated at W3C without warnings or errors).

I had got it working in IE 6, Firdbird 0.7, Opera 7.22, and Netscape 7.1, on
W2000.

It was a bit grotty in IE 5, but I think I could have fixed that.

The Mac IE 5.2 screenshot showed that it simply broke apart very badly, and I
gave up because I couldn't see a way to sort it out. (Except to ignore IE 5.2
on Mac, of course).

Just an anecdote. I think it is best not to try to work out whether it was
better or worse - perhaps "equally bad but different".

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #79
Peter Diedrich wrote:

I give up now.

Have a nice day.


Bye.

--
Brian
Jul 20 '05 #80
Barry Pearson wrote:
Brian wrote:
Michael Wilcox wrote:
[snip] I've seen screenshots from a Mac user of one of my pages that was
trying to do some tricky things with CSS. (My page validated as 4.01
Strict, and the CSS validated at W3C without warnings or errors).

I had got it working in IE 6, Firdbird 0.7, Opera 7.22, and Netscape
7.1, on W2000.

It was a bit grotty in IE 5, but I think I could have fixed that.

The Mac IE 5.2 screenshot showed that it simply broke apart very
badly, and I gave up because I couldn't see a way to sort it out.
(Except to ignore IE 5.2 on Mac, of course).

[snip]

My experimental page. (I've moved it, but the content is the same):
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...rs/corners.htm

Screen capture from IE 5.2 on Mac:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...eencapture.jpg

I was trying to make rounded corners using CSS techniques, without using
images in either the HTML or the CSS.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #81
Brian wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:

layout tables are demonstrably successful, perhaps accounting for
about 99% of the pages on the web, year after year

Advocates of CSS positioning can't hope to prove their point by
showing that layout tables don't work, because they clearly *do*
work.


"tables are good for layout" fffpppttt

[snip]

Yup! They can be very effective. I notice that The Times has just done
significant changes to its layout, and it has once again gone with layout
tables. And why not?

Layout tables have their own balance of advantages & disadvantages, as with
other layout techniques such as normal flow, absolute positioning, fixed
positioning, floats, frames, iframes, objects, Flash, etc.

No method is ideal. No method suits all people, all audiences, all purposes.
Each can be evaluated, so that it can be used where appropriate. Sometimes
they can be used in combination to achieve thins that are tricky or impossible
using just one technique.

The primary test is "does this web site/page communicate effectively with its
target audience?" Technique is of secondary importance, or less. After all, it
is only mark-up, it isn't sin!

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #82
In article <nz22c.4371$6Z.1829@newsfe1-win>,
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
The Mac IE 5.2 screenshot showed that it simply broke apart very badly, and I
gave up because I couldn't see a way to sort it out. (Except to ignore IE 5.2
on Mac, of course).


One not so secret fun fact about CSSp is that when a small detail is
unsupported, it often has major visual effects. That does not
necessarily mean the UA in question has extremely bad CSS support, nor
does it say that it is a lot of work to alter the CSS.

<http://www.quirksmode.org/browsers/explorer5mac.html>

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
Jul 20 '05 #83

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

2
by: Tristan Miller | last post by:
Greetings. I have a two-column web layout, where the first column is just the regular body text with a "marign-right" of 16em, and the second column is an "absolute"-positioned div with a width...
1
by: Will Buntin | last post by:
I am trying to design my site without tables, using CSS for positioning and am having limited success. My main issue is I have a three column layout and my footer needs to run across the page,...
7
by: Andrew | last post by:
I've been struggling to achieve the following layout for some time now and I'm not getting anywhere. I've tried several approaches including floats & absolute positioning and none seem to work,...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
0
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
0
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
0
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.