On Jun 11, 2011, at 10:42 AM, tee wrote:
> Still I have one question: you mentioned 100% for outer divs are not
> necessary - but this is what I thought how iOS Safari "downsize" works, that
> it shrinks everything inside the 100% to viewport size, meaning the 100%
> width for outer box is the starting point for the browser to calculate the
> content within, so the 1014 is not the 1014 but in relation to the width of
> the outer box. If my outer box has a width of 95%, the 1014px will be
> calculated based on the 95%.
>
> Also, if it can't downsize correctly due to Pixel not being relative unit,
> should we not expect it will downsize to viewport if relative unit declare?
> But I don't see this happening.
width:100% won't change anything, it will only say: make this block as wide as
the width of the parent block (in this case body & the root element). That is
the default behaviour for block level elements, as noted earlier. And it won't
really help iOS devices scale your content.
And it doesn't say much about the width of descendant element.
In your case, you could avoid the issue by giving a min-width to your outermost
wrapper, say #sitewrap { min-width: 1024px }
(the way Mobile Safari computes the scaling is of course more complicated, as
it based on the whole page)
That is why you have the 'viewport' meta element, to give Mobile Safari a
guideline on how to go about scaling, or tell it not to scale
(viewport=device-width).
Philippe
--
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com/
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/
