Felix Miata wrote:
> Your #outerwrap margin-right -300px and #contentwrap padding-right
> -150px break as font size deviates from 16px, so I don't see how that
> concept is even plausible in a fluid design?
You're right, I would never use a construction exactly like that -- not
in any design. Maybe it was wrong to post an incomplete solution (as
someone might get fooled into actually using it), but I thought of it as
> http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/tmp/testb.html is essentially what I wound
> up using...
I have only one problem with that one: I don't like it when pages adjust
in width upon text-zoom, because they never fit the window. I prefer
fluid solutions that only expands in height when needed, because they
stay reasonably well within most screen/browser-widths even when text is
resized. So I would end up using some style-variation on the following.
Of course something will break there too, eventually, as always. No big
I'm one of those who feed font-sizes based on pixels (on body) to 'those
browsers that can handle it', and percentage-based font-sizes to IE/win.
I also test my own pages in IE/win's accessibility mode, and test with
"minimum font size = 28px" in Opera to make sure they can take some of
The design itself is based on a pretty stable mix of pixels and
percentages - works just as well as 2 and 3-column - and is fluid enough
for my taste. However, my preferred structure (at the moment) can hardly
be called 'minimalistic', as your testcase seems to be. Guess we differ
on that point, so I didn't feel my more 'complex' method was the right
answer to your original. Maybe it was...
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/