Ysgrifennodd David Laakso: > It may be just as well that the header image does not scale (except in > Opera) because it does not a pretty picture make when scaled-- > personal opinion of course. Others on the list can provide the methods > for it to scale images if you still want it to do so. Personally, I'd > wait until the technology for making this happen less crudely than now > is in place.
You may well be right. In fact I think you are. I've sent (before getting your reply) to the designer asking if he'd rather have the image and content over less than 100% of the body width. Much as you've done, in fact. He'll be mad if you doesn't (see below). While I'm at it, can I just say how amazed I am that you actually took the time to re-do the page. I can't tell you how grateful I am that you did that. Looking at the code "done right" is the very best way to learn IMHO. Thank you. > The page needs a little more structure to employ font-scaling up or > down. The basic principle for doing so comes from print media layout > <shudder the thought>. *Hold the horizontals * (on the Web it means > set width in px, em, percent, min/max or some combination of them) and > *hit the verticals* (by not restricting or impeding height). The > example [1] employs px width > and has been cursory checked in IE/6, IE/7, and compliant browsers. > > [1] > <http://www.chelseacreekstudio.com/ca/cssd/c.html> I've already said thank you, so I'll say it again here. And thanks also for the explanation, which makes sense. This is the first time I've ever seen that stated. I guess with a non-floated solution there's really no way to avoid specifying a height (or at least a maximum height) unless you know for certain that one block will always, under all circumstances, be longer than the other(s). A tough call. I was trying to avoid floats. For no particular reason except that I was interested to see whether or not I could. That's why there's all that nonsense trying to get the footer in the right place. Your solution was interesting to me particularly because I'd never seen a worked example using right floats before - but I guess there's no particular reason to prefer one over the other (is there?). Ah! I've just thought of a reason. It puts the navigation after the content in the code order, doesn't it. Was that the reason? What I think I'll do is to tidy mine up, putting a wrapper around the two lists as you have done (navigation), because that's clearly an improvement - and something I'd thought of but was just too idle to put into practice, so thanks for the heads-up. Then I'll let my client and her designer choose how they want to deal with the scaling. If they don't prefer floats they'll be mad IMO, but clients often are (and designers are by definition - from the sample I have amongst my friends). :) I might also try to change your solution from px to em. Thanks once again. I hope that one day I'll get good enough to be able to do the same for someone else. Best regards Peter ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
