Erik Visser wrote:
> so there is:
>
> em-liquid ( no max / min width? )
- From the name/description: it is "fixed to em" and not liquid at all,
but it is possible to add min / max width so the layout doesn't go
completely crazy when subjected to a bit more extreme font resizing.
> em-fixed ( fixed width? )
- same as above. Once we use em for width it is pretty much "fixed",
regardless of what we call it. Plenty of names and descriptions around,
which basically describe the same.
> em-guided-liquid
- that is a liquid layout that has min / max width in ems. See below.
> or are there more?
- 'fixed width' (width in px) is used a lot.
- 'fixed - liquid - fixed' is a "standard" 3-column variant - with or
without min- and/or max-width.
- 'liquid' (all columns given percentage-width) - with or without min-
and/or max-width.
- 'fixed - liquid - em - em-guided' in whatever combination we like -
depending on number of columns, of course.
I've run out of names for all variants :-)
Note: I haven't figured out the difference between 'liquid' and 'fluid'
when used to describe or name layout-types, so to me those words means
the same in web design.
> does guided-liquid mean: min-width and max-width implemented??
In my use of descriptive names - yes - it does.
Such a layout will always try to "fill the screen" - or rather the
browser-window, but won't go beyond it (except in extreme cases and on
very narrow windows). It is essentially a normal liquid layout that has
'auto' width or (something close to) '100%' width.
It is then guided by a 'max-width' in em, so its width will be guided by
font-size / resizing - _as long as_ it fits within the window.
Add a 'min-width', in ems or (preferably) in px, and it will create a
horizontal scroll-bar on very narrow windows. Such a width-restriction
is usually preferable in order to avoid overlapping, float-drops and
other nastiness.
The above 'guided-liquid' can be "turned both ways", as we can use
percentage for 'width' and em for 'max-width', *or* em for 'width' and
percentage for 'max-width'.
No noticeable differences in browsers that support 'max-width', but a
bit harder to make the latter work in IE6.
Whether we should call the latter version 'percentage-guided-em' or
something else, is something I haven't thought too much about.
----------
From the above you can see that *layout-methods* can be added and/or
subtracted so we can get a lot of combinations and variants. As
browser-support grows stronger we may be able to add even more methods
into the mix - the whole range of CSS table properties comes to mind, so
there should be enough variants for everyone.
Naming each of them becomes impossible, IMO, so it might be a bit
difficult to tell others which variant we're using just by presenting a
name and/or a short description.
FWIW: I use all available methods more or less all the time, and have no
idea what to call _that_ other than 'conditional'.
(I define the 'conditions' :-) )
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
