CSS limitations?

You have to do a lot of jostling to get position:fixed to work properly in IE

I wouldn't know

yes, I know.

So essentially you just set the nav panel column to a fixed height in order to cover the entire length of the screen? This is what it looks like to me.

The downside I see to this is how to handle different pages of differing heights? The class would need to be adjusted for pages of differing sizes. i.e. if you had a page that was 2 pages long, and a page that was 5 pages long, then differing height measurements would have to be set for the nav column in each page. However, this could be accomplished fairly easily. I'm not sure the of vocabulary (child classes?) but I've read about it being done before.

Or, could you use an ID to accomplish this?

Mark

Attn: ATNO/TW:

Re the below:
Oh, what the heck. I expect allgoodpeople probably knows how to see the CSS source


Is it possible for you to explain how this is done?

Regards,
OzDave

I use HTML-kit as an editor primarily OzDave. I just type in the URL for the css file and it opens it up. Same thing with TopStyle Pro. I suppose most editors will let you do that.

I'm not sure how much detail you need in order to see the CSS file, so if you already know this, then I apologize for telling you something you already know

You would view the source for the page in question in order to get the name of the CSS file. once you have that name, you would then simply type it into the URL area.

For instance, at my site http://www.markrhodes.us, if you viewed the source code you would see the name of the CSS file is default.css. You would then type http://www.markrhodes.us/default.css into your address bar, and it would open the file in your default application for viewing CSS files.

Be sure that you type in the entire directory address in case the CSS file is in a subdirectory on the server, and not just the name of the CSS file. For example, if my CSS file was in /CSSfiles/default.css, you would want to enter http://www.markrhodes.us/CSSfiles/default.css.

Hope that helps!

Mark

The biggest problem with this is: it doesn't work!

Also it's a work-around, the thing about CSS is we are still using work-arounds and hacks to solve problems, some of which were solved easily with <tables>s.

I agree with the W3C about using HTML for semantics, and seperating content from style. BUT they gave us a half-baked solution!

I get the impression that the W3C said "don't use tables for layout, here is CSS - use this instead!" That was the general message, and it sounds like CSS will replace <table>s for our layout requirements and more, but in reality, they expect us to change our layouts and design ideas to suit 'The New Code'.


As for a quick solution try this....

Those are some good points LazyJim, and I think you're right. Using CSS does require you to design differently. But, then again, the layouts we had previously done were designed because of things TABLES were good at, and because of the differences in the 4.x browsers.

I can't wait to see what CSS3 has in store for us.

Curious what browser it didn't work on LazyJim? Worked for me on IE6, NS7.1 and Firefox

IE6 and FF (firefox)

I was browsing at 1280x1024

I think CSS is the best thing since sliced <table>s but it's still not made to be easy to use by the majority of web designers and/or developers.

(oh yeah and obviously the browser manufactures are partly to blame for the diffuclties developers face as well)

I agree that current/past popular designs were in part shaped by what <table>s allowed us to do, and there's nothing wrong with exploring the new way our desgns are shaped by CSS.
However, who really want's to lose the style of layouts we could do with <table>s?
And more importantly, who wants to limit their designs by the code they use, rather than their imagination?

Yeah same here.

Currently you can use etc to emulate the table-based layouts and it works great, but not on IE.

The addition of those display types to CSS was a good idea, but they should be concentrating on providing a universal solution rather than another way to code the <table> layouts which have their own limitations.

Yes I can't wait for CSS3 and SVG and XML to perculate into mainstream browsers.

(had to edit that last one for ya LazyJim - the code you had in there messed up the whole thread without separating it out with the bbCode.)

lol sorry, if i ticked "ignore HTML" would that have helped?

Yes, but probably safer to use the bbCode. Besides it helps the code stand apart from normal text.