Chris Akins wrote: > I believe you must be some kind of genius! :-) Your "rough" > corrections always bring things right into line. Not sure how you do > it so quickly. But thanks.
You're welcome. FYI: I practice what I preach - see the "[css-d] CSS Resources" thread from yesterday. > In your opinion is there another solution to this design that would > work better? Not asking for you to do the development, but rather to > point me in a better direction if it exists. IMO, the most cross-browser reliable, and flexible, solution to date, is this... <http://www.alistapart.com/articles/negativemargins/> ...which you can arrange visual order vs. source order and mix fixed and fluid width for, as you like. All my designs are to some degree based on that 'negative margins' method, and I have yet to find reasons to change. In such a solid framework you can add rounded corners and whatever else you want for your "illusion" - design. Remember that nothing has to be what it looks like - or the other way round, and the sky becomes the limit. Having a solid framework certainly doesn't mean browsers - especially IE6/7 - won't create problems though, as they will act up and introduce their bugs and weaknesses regardless of method. It's just that the problems will be easier to track, contain and fix when the framework is sound, as you won't have to do much debugging of the framework itself. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
