|
|
Posted by Ben C on 06/14/07 07:42
On 2007-06-13, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <slrnf6v7bm.m3u.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
[...]
>
> Interesting. I have a little page that I test footers on at:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3bntgw
>
> and it has (now), barring a few minor stylistic changes, your
> idea. Curiously I found that 3em worked better in your
>
><div style="height: 3em"></div>
>
> over a larger range of browser window and text settings.
You've changed (I think) #footer so it's now got padding-bottom: 2em
instead of height: 2em which I think is what I had. So 3em would be
about right for one line of text and 2ems of padding. To be on the safe
side better to set the height of #footer to 3em as well, or to exactly
what the height of the dummy div at the bottom is set to.
And also to be on the safe side explicitly set padding-bottom: 0 on
#content since the footer is positioned relative to the inside border
edge not to the inside padding edge.
> Now, of course, this is in my Mac browsers. Of course, it does
> not work in Mac IE 5 and without testing it neither the elephant
> (getting smaller every day): Windows IE 6. Other provisions and
> clauses needed to cater for these recalcitrants!
>
> (I still sort of like my policy of just putting footers after the
> rest and centering and not bothering about it being at the bottom
> of the view window, and therefore no need to position anything
> really.
Good policy.
> I don't know if this is a tad unprofessional or not?
Footers that find their way to the bottom of big empty pages look all
right I suppose.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|