Thanks to those who responded on this. I'll play with the various
suggestions over the weekend and see where I end up!
Best Regards,
Bob McClelland
Cornwall (UK)
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
**
The discussion list for http://webstandards
Thanks to those who responded on this. I'll play with the various
suggestions over the weekend and see where I end up!
--
Best Regards,
Bob McClelland
Cornwall (UK)
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
**
The discussion list for http://webstandar
On 06/04/27 14:19 (GMT-0400) Bob McClelland apparently typed:
> 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).
Designer wrote:
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
On 4/27/06, Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, just not creative enough. Here's how I get around this:
>
> #container { width: 75em; }
>
> body>#container { width:98%; max-width:75em; min-width:40em; }
I realize I should qualify this by saying there are lots of ways to
play with th
On 4/27/06, Designer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 t
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 D
