Sent by Liz on 20 July 2006 19:07
On 7/20/06 7:48 AM, "Alex Robinson" [EMAIL-REMOVED]> wrote:
>> Liz wrote:
>>> ... It seems wierd that someone would make a design
>>> that anchors don't work in since anchors are so widely used. ...
>
> It was an oversight missed by myself and the 20 or so people who
> looked over the technique during its development - a situation
> compounded by the at the time unremarked upon lack of consensus among
> browsers on how to handle overflow:hidden and anchors.
>
> That's life I'm afraid.
>
> It was my bad that it took me an age to actually publish an update
> about the problem...
>
>
> Ingo wrote of another way of dealing with problem:
>> But I admit this is not practical, and will break, too.
>
>
> Actually I do have a solution of sorts for Mozilla/Firefox/Camino...
>
> http://www.fu2k.org/alex/css/cssjunk/anotherequalheight
>
> [Note that the url contains cssjunk - ie. it's a temporary likely to
> disappear page so don't link to it - in fact please don't link to it
> in any case for reasons I hope will be obvious]
>
>
> The solution is based on using XBL attached via the -moz-binding property
>
> http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xbl/xbl.html
> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/CSS:-moz-binding
>
> Essentially the "equal height" stuff is overridden in Mozilla, an
> explicit height applied to the containing element and the columns'
> height is set to 100%.
>
>
> Now it works as is, but I haven't had time to prettify or incorporate
> back into the original article. Why? Well I'm still contemplating:
>
> 1. The validity of -moz-binding and how to deal with it
>
> 2. How to handle things if javascript is turned off since it wouldn't work
> then
>
> 3. How to make things as generic as possible, so as to require as
> little tweaking of the XBL file as possible (and whether some of the
> moz class redefinitions should live in the XBL or in the CSS)
>
> 4. What to do about future versions of Safari which will begin
> conforming to the now standard overflow: hidden anchor behaviour (as
> reported by Philippe Wittenbergh). I think it should be possible
> since Safari allows for absolute positioning of generated content.
>
> 5. Rationalising and shrinking the whole OTL code down since it's got
> a "bit" over complicated and I'm sure some of it is there purely as
> voodoo which really isn't necessary.
>
>
> Anyone with any brilliant ideas, do let me know.
Thank you for your reply. The one true layout is really a beautiful
solution and I realize a lot of work was put into it. I can see how the
anchor was overlooked. I showed you a scaled down page but I actually
already built about 10 real pages before noticing. Regardless of the anchor
fix, I think there are too many mac users that still use IE 5 (I know many
that do) so I will find a solution that will work there also. I should find
a web stat page that shows what what browsers are being used but I've heard
that they are unreliable.
I read in another post (answering someone else's question) a recommendaton
of Skidoo http://webhost.bridgew.edu/etribou/layouts/skidoo_too/index.html
I'll give that a try.
Regards,
Liz
> ______________________________________________________________________
> css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
> IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
> List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
>
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
