Posted by David Graham on 01/10/06 18:34

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0601091204550.1704@ZORIN...
>
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, David Graham wrote:
>
> > >> Does IE 5.5 have a standard mode as well as a quirk mode?
> > >> I think IE5.0 and IE4.0 is always quirk regardless of doctype - is
> > >> that correct?
> >
> > Could I press you or someone else for specific answers to the 2
questions
> > above.
>
> I'd recommend bookmarking a couple of URLs that I've found to be
> reliable sources of information on such topics:
>
> http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch.html
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/
>
> These also include links to authoritative pages at the various
> vendors' sites, including MS.
>
> Based on what I read there, my interpretation is that for Win IE, the
> doctype "switch" was new with IE6. But Mac IE is a completely
> different implementation, and followed its own development path (for
> as long as it was being developed, which no longer seems to be the
> case).
>
> > Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> >
> > > But as for this particular tutorial:
> > >
> > > body {
> > > min-width:750px;
> > > }
> > >
> > > is plain rude. I'd prefer a browser which ignored that! The design
> > > would otherwise have worked fine in my usual browser window,
>
> Sorry, I'd better re-word that. The design, as it stands, wouldn't
> simply work by taking out that one setting, because there are other
> fixed px specifications in there which would militate against fluid
> behaviour...
>
> > > but the pesky author insisted on throwing a pointless and useless
> > > left/right scrollbar, something which users are well known to
> > > dislike - me included.
> >
> > So, I can drop the above rule? - the author states something about
> > it being wise to have because there can be trouble in some browsers
> > when the wrap div width is greater than the browser screen.
>
> Seems plausible - so "don't do that". I can see some justification
> (no pun intended) for wanting to specify a minimum width for the
> sidebar (although if I were doing that, I'd use em units). But I
> can't see any justification for not allowing the main content to fit
> itself into the (remaining width of the) browser window which the user
> has made available. Attempts to fight the user are at odds with the
> general web principle that the user has the last word. Some of the
> more discerning readers may be able to overrule the author - the rest
> may just get crabby and leave.
>
> For my taste, there's far too much setting of fixed widths in px units
> going on in the tutorial page that you were citing. Just seeing those
> is enough to discourage me from taking it as any kind of role model,
> to be honest.
>
> And it might be that in a particularly narrow browser window, or with
> a particularly large font zoom (e.g sight-impaired readers), a
> preferable behaviour would be to have the sidebar float below (or
> above, depending on priorities) the main content. Judicious use of
> floating can achieve that, without impairing the results for those
> whose browser window width is adequate for the intended 2-col layout.
>
> If you're going to ask "do I have a concrete stylesheet to use instead
> of the one at the cited URL?", I'm going to have to say no, sorry; but
> I'm pretty sure one could be done along the principles I've suggested.
>
> Take a look at e.g
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/layout2.html
> for a somewhat more complex example. I've found this author to be a
> useful source of ideas for fluid design.
>
> hope you find it useful.


Thanks for the link and the advice. I didn't like the fixed pixel dimensions
either.
--
David Graham

[Back to original message]