Previous Message
Next Message

[css-d] positioning divs at bottom of page?

Sent by Chris on 27 January 2002 02:02


Hello again. I thank L.Lyon for helping me with my last post. I *was* warned
to not go there with Netscape 4, but I had to look, I just had to! <g>
http://www.TheBicyclingGuitarist.net/diane/ppgcss.htm  is a total mess in
Netscape 4.08, so it is on hold for now. It *is* a lot closer than it was,
though, to abolishing those evil tables used for layout.

New question: I have three dozen pages in my "songs" folder and another two
dozen in my "comments" folder that all use a layout table at the bottom of
each page to contain my navigation links. PLEASE, SOMEBODY HELP ME!
ARRRGGGHHHH!!!!

examples are at http://www.TheBicyclingGuitarist.net/songs/spankthe.htm (two
row, three columns typical of the "songs" folder pages) and the comments
page for that song at
http://www.TheBicyclingGuitarist.net/comments/spankthec.htm (one row, three
columns typical of the "comments" folder pages).

Now don't think I haven't already given some thought to how to accomplish
this. I know the trick is to replace layout tables with divs, nested if
necessary because nested divs at least are still logical structures whereas
tables used exclusively for layout are not. It's the positioning that throws
me off. I *think* I read somewhere that one div has to be positioned
absolutely from the top and left of the page, and then other divs can be
positioned relative to it. Are these the infamous parent-child
relationships?

If I absolutely position a div at the bottom of the page measured from the
top of the page, my concern is that if people make their text the largest
size possible for whatever reasons (poor vision, sado-masochism, whatever)
then possibly the text above the divs would either overlap or be buried.

IF someone will give me the hints on how to set these navigaton icons with
their associated text in a manner that *looks* as much as possible like the
current layout, I will be very very grateful. Look, all you have to do is
write the code *one* time. I, on the other hand, have more than *five dozen*
pages to apply the corrections to. Yeah, I know. Some webmasters work with
thousands of pages, but sixty pages is a lot when you're as anal about your
code being correct as I have become since I began reading
comp.infosystems.authoring newsgroups a couple of months ago...

Peace, and (hopefully) thanks in advance...
Chris Watson, a.k.a. "The Bicycling Guitarist"
Previous Message
Next Message