Posted by dorayme on 10/12/06 21:13

In article <jh8104-g14.ln1@xword.teksavvy.com>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2006-10-12, dorayme wrote:
> >
> > I think that what can happen with pushing the liquid layout
> > message too strongly is that one then has to turn around to
> > constrain things in other ways. These other ways may be worth it.
> > But they are time consuming. And you achieve little benefit for
> > things like essays that bang on for quite a while, no pics, no
> > nothing else, just words.
> >
> > If you want to have a discussion about this, here is a concrete
> > example, cf
> >
> > http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws.html
> >
> >
> > http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLawsFixed.html
>
> Both of those work well, because neither uses a fixed width.

Not "because neither uses a fixed width". Let me explain briefly:
true, I was rushing to get out to the beach and have my afternoon
swim [1] and forgot to knock off the "max-" bit off the div
width. If you would kindly knock it off and see the result, it
still works fine, in fact, pretty much the same in decent
browsers, who is going to go lower than 600 wide, even Alan
Flavell would cope on one of his machines.

You can make the technical point that it is still "liquid" with
the max-width in, I am making the point that in many cases it
really is not a big deal which way you go for some things and
further that in some cases it saves a headache going truly fixed.
But I am still thinking about all this stuff (I rarely use fixed
myself, I wonder why the hell not sometimes! So many lovely sites
employ it)

[By the way, eat your hearts out you miserable, wretched, cold
northern hemisphere earthlings, later this avo, I will go for a
swim at

http://members.optusnet.com.au/mons1/page6.htm

but realise this: nowadays the beach is in full colour and is too
glorious to tease you with.]

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]