css column layout

[Yofnik]

Hello All,
If this is not the appropriate group for this post, please point me in
the right direction.

I am trying to create a layout that has three main columns. The
primary content is the left most column. The width of this should be
variable depending on the size of the browser window. The middle and
right columns should have a fixed width of 200 pixels. I can get the
middle and right columns working as expected. I can't figure out how
to make the first column change with the browser size. If I use a
width of 60% it almost works, but when the browser window is small,
the third column wraps around and appears way down at the bottom.

Is there some way to make the width of the first column simply "the
remainder". For example:
<div style="float: left; width: remainder">
main content
</div>
<div style="float: left; width: 200px">
middle column
</div>
<div style="float: rigth: width: 200px">
left column
</div>
Any suggestions? Thanks!

[Anthony Levensalor]

Yofnik said:

>

Any suggestions? Thanks!

This is a javascript newsgroup, you're looking for CSS or html authoring.

~A!

[-Lost]

Response to Yofnik <je********@gmail.com>:

If this is not the appropriate group for this post, please point
me in the right direction.

comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets

There is also:

comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Yofnik wrote:

If this is not the appropriate group for this post, please point me in
the right direction.

I am trying to create a layout that has three main columns. [...]

CSS is on-topic in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, where more
competent people probably have already discussed your problem a number of
times. Suffice it to say that using any search engine before posting would
have gotten you much farther.
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f8*******************@news.demon.co.uk>

[Anthony Levensalor]

Randy Webb said:
[snip]

When a table solution does exactly what you want it to do, and a CSS
solution doesn't, you use the one that does what you want it to do.

That, I cannot argue with. When the OP heads over to the CSS group and
mentions tables there, I hope they are as forgiving. Tables make good
things bad and bad things unusable.

[snip]

'action' is null or not an object

Well, don't tell his wife. She already suspects. ;)

Besides, it doesn't give a solution, it gives a hack to make it appear
as if you have a solution.

I think I mentioned that it was illusory. Either way, the OP was asking
about CSS, and I abhor table layouts. I have seen too many break too
frequently and too easily. Getting started at a bad CSS tutorial is
better than using tables and applying CSS to them.

~A!

[-Lost]

Response to Anthony Levensalor <ki******@mypetprogrammer.com>:

I think I mentioned that it was illusory. Either way, the OP was
asking about CSS, and I abhor table layouts. I have seen too many
break too frequently and too easily. Getting started at a bad CSS
tutorial is better than using tables and applying CSS to them.

I wouldn't call anything written or elaborated on by Dave Child, "bad."

Perhaps unorthodox, definitely another way of doing the same old thing
(which is all this new-age Web 2.0 BS is about), but definitely not
bad.

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.

[Anthony Levensalor]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:

CSS is on-topic in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, where more
competent people probably have already discussed your problem a number of
times. Suffice it to say that using any search engine before posting would
have gotten you much farther.

Hear hear. I'm with you on this one.

~A!

[Anthony Levensalor]

-Lost said:

I wouldn't call anything written or elaborated on by Dave Child, "bad."

Perhaps unorthodox, definitely another way of doing the same old thing
(which is all this new-age Web 2.0 BS is about), but definitely not
bad.

Oh, I had no intention to disparage his work in the slightest, I was
just trying to point out that even a bad CSS would be preferable to
tables. I didn't mean to infer anything about him or his site.

~A!

[Randy Webb]

Anthony Levensalor said the following on 1/2/2008 12:09 PM:

Randy Webb said:
[snip]

>When a table solution does exactly what you want it to do, and a CSS
solution doesn't, you use the one that does what you want it to do.

That, I cannot argue with. When the OP heads over to the CSS group and
mentions tables there, I hope they are as forgiving. Tables make good
things bad and bad things unusable.
[snip]

>Besides, it doesn't give a solution, it gives a hack to make it appear
as if you have a solution.

I think I mentioned that it was illusory. Either way, the OP was asking
about CSS, and I abhor table layouts. I have seen too many break too
frequently and too easily. Getting started at a bad CSS tutorial is
better than using tables and applying CSS to them.

I am not going to have a tables vs. broken CSS debate here. If a table
is the best solution, then it is the best solution no matter where it is
debated. The same goes for a CSS solution. But, to simply make a blanket
statement "Don't ever use tables for layout" is just plain wrong.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Anthony Levensalor]

Randy Webb said:

[snip]

I am not going to have a tables vs. broken CSS debate here. If a table
is the best solution, then it is the best solution no matter where it is
debated. The same goes for a CSS solution. But, to simply make a blanket
statement "Don't ever use tables for layout" is just plain wrong.

Agreed. I tend to think most absolute statements are wrong. In my
vehemence over tables I overstepped.

~A!

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <117794ba-9dd9-4e28-ae19-10eafdd778a7@s1
2g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:57:37, David Mark
<dm***********@gmail.composted:

>Rhetorical :
What proportion of coders could lay out a 7-segment display as a Table?
What proportion of coders could lay out a 7-segment display in pure CSS?
I can say only that the former is not zero but the latter might be.

The number of columns (if that is what you mean by segment) doesn't
really complicate things, though more than 3 would seem a bad idea for
a Web page. Assuming such a layout were needed, I would advise
against using a table to render it as it would be virtually unusable
on mobile devices. On the other hand, using CSS positioning, it is
trivial to turn it into a single-column layout with a handheld style
sheet.

(1) It was rhetorical!
(2) I think you misunderstood - see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-
segment_displayand <$$7seg.htm>.
(3) E-mail in hand.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk / ??*********@physics.org
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/- FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "" (SoRFC1036)

[David Mark]

On Jan 5, 11:56*am, Dr J R Stockton <[e-mail]:

In comp.lang.javascript message <117794ba-9dd9-4e28-ae19-10eafdd778a7@s1
2g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:57:37, David Mark
<[e-mail]:

Rhetorical :
What proportion of coders could lay out a 7-segment display as a Table?
What proportion of coders could lay out a 7-segment display in pure CSS?
I can say only that the former is not zero but the latter might be.

The number of columns (if that is what you mean by segment) doesn't
really complicate things, though more than 3 would seem a bad idea for
a Web page. *Assuming such a layout were needed, I would advise
against using a table to render it as it would be virtually unusable
on mobile devices. *On the other hand, using CSS positioning, it is
trivial to turn it into a single-column layout with a handheld style
sheet.

(1) It was rhetorical!

I know. That's why I didn't answer it.

(2) I think you misunderstood - see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-
segment_displayand <$$7seg.htm>.

I did misunderstand. But I would implement that with positioned
elements as well.

[Randy Webb]

Dr J R Stockton said the following on 1/5/2008 11:56 AM:

In comp.lang.javascript message <117794ba-9dd9-4e28-ae19-10eafdd778a7@s1
2g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:57:37, David Mark
<dm***********@gmail.composted:

>>Rhetorical :
What proportion of coders could lay out a 7-segment display as a Table?
What proportion of coders could lay out a 7-segment display in pure CSS?
I can say only that the former is not zero but the latter might be.

The number of columns (if that is what you mean by segment) doesn't
really complicate things, though more than 3 would seem a bad idea for
a Web page. Assuming such a layout were needed, I would advise
against using a table to render it as it would be virtually unusable
on mobile devices. On the other hand, using CSS positioning, it is
trivial to turn it into a single-column layout with a handheld style
sheet.

(1) It was rhetorical!
(2) I think you misunderstood - see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-
segment_displayand <$$7seg.htm>.

If you wrap URLs in URL tags, they won't get wrapped.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/