Bill, on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 at 16:23 Bill Moseley wrote:
> 1) The table version has an explicit width and so shrinking the window > doesn't effect the design (just requires scrolling). In the css > version the "DO SOMETHING" links starts wrapping. I'm not really sure > what the "correct" behaviour is (guess it depends on the client). The table layout has a fixed width while your css layout is liquid. These are two different approaches. IMHO you should give your css layout a min-width with appropriate fixes for IE. (http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=MinWidth) > 2) If I do set a width, is it better to use em instead of px for the > width, so the width adjusts with the font sizes? If you use loads of background-images it will be easier to use px and give the layout enough space for the text to grow at least to 150%. IMHO it is more usable if the whole layout is sized in em, but this is personal preference. > 3) The bottom 1/2 of the banner has two div's, the "DO SOMETHING" text > and links, and the search box. Is there a way to get the text from > both divs to line up on the same center line (vertically)? Or is it a > matter of just adjusting both until they match? You can control it by box and line-heights. > 4) With the css version, making the font size larger (ctrl+ in > firefox) makes the search box grow, but the containing orange box > doesn't grow to contain it. The containing box is height: 40px, > again, would it be better to use em in that case? Don't use height for the surrounding box. Clear the floats and let the box take the space it needs. (Use padding to make it a bit bigger if you need it!) regards Martin ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
