I have to agree with you Bob on this one... keep it simple its my mojo... also I really cant understand why it is designed for an non-typical Resolution, such as 800X600... can anyone answer this?
-----Mensaje original----- De: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de Designer Enviado el: Jueves, 27 de Abril de 2006 01:19 p.m. Para: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Asunto: [WSG] min-width and max-width - [was Pixel to Em conversion] As soon as I see someone mention 'min-width' or 'max-width' I despair and move on to the next message. The reason? Because I know that somewhere between 75 and 90% of the site viewers will see a mess. (I mean IE, of course). Yes, I do know that with a lot of messy code it is sometimes/eventually possible to get away with 'fixes' but the resulting page is often just a fragile house of cards which tumbles away to a shambles when the slightest change is made. So, I always take the view that there must be another approach available to achieve the design in question, and I forget about min and max widths. (and I don't mean tables :-) ) Is this being too harsh? -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ****************************************************** ---- This message has been scanned by BitDefender and found to be clean. ---- This message has been scanned by BitDefender and found to be clean. ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
