|
|
Posted by dorayme on 09/10/07 01:21
In article <13e92hr5v010438@corp.supernews.com>,
Dave Kelly <daveekelly@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I read here: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/
> and took this under 'background-size'
>
> Here are some examples. The first example stretches the background image
> independently in both directions to completely cover the content area:
>
> div {
> background-image: url(plasma.png);
> background-size: 100%;
> background-origin: content}
>
> to mean that the image would not tile and only show once taking up
> the whole container, both vertically and horizontally.
>
> Look here for my problem. http://www.texasflyfishers.org/newindex.htm
>
> Those columns will be different length at different times. Is there a
> better way to set the length to the conditions?
>
> Running the css code thru the W3C css validate and I get 4 errors:
> URI : http://texasflyfishers.org/newtff3col.css
> 69 #navigation Property background-size doesn't exist : 100%
> 70 #navigation Property background-origin doesn't exist : content
> 102 #rightcol Property background-size doesn't exist : 100%
> 103 #rightcol Property background-origin doesn't exist : content
This site is struggling badly with many problems, you are
tightrope walking and you really ought to consider two options at
this point. One, if you are really set on the look of this three
col as you have it but with the problems about background gone,
use a table and be done. Two, redesign things so you are not
requiring the things that are giving you problems, no point in
mentioning alternatives here unless you are open to them?
From an aesthetic point of view, it would be no big loss to be
rid of those repeating backgrounds for the side cols as they are
not exactly harmonious with the bg for the header (which is a
fair enough one I guess), it looks sort of like "someone has
decided to put in a background of a similar hue to above...". It
is "acceptable" perhaps, but not first rate. The pictorial
connection between the header and these col bgs is not natural or
good in any real sense. I am saying, in effect, you should not be
too wedded to them.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|