Peach Lynda L CTR USAF 96 CG/SCWOE wrote: > Others can join Georg & I in this discussion ... :-)
Yes, please do :-) Nothing like a creative discussion in the midst of all the IE-bugs we have to kill. >> Never mind the meta-element. It doesn't matter out on the web. > Okay -- I'll remove that line from the page. Leave the meta in the page, since at least /some/ browsers may use it "off-line" - so it's useful for testing and such. It just does not make any difference "on-line". > Yet the code I have has <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML > 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd";> <html > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml""; xml:lang="en"> > If I replaced the above with the w3.org strict recommended DOCTYPE, > am I going to case problems in the CSS and browser rendering? I don't think so. There are some slight differences between HTML-compatible XHTML 1.0 and the non-HTML-compatible XHTML 1.1, so check with the W3C HTML validator. Browsers won't create any problems that I know of. You can always test if browsers accept your XHTML - for future-proofing, by serving your XHTML 1.0 Strict as both 'text/html' and 'application/xhtml+xml'. Information and example on how I do it... 'text/html': <http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03.html> 'app...n/xhtml+xml': <http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03.xhtml> >> FYI: I hardly ever resize fonts. Instead I have set a 'minimum font >> size' value so my browsers do it "automatically" for me on every >> site. Few sites seems to be well prepared for that option, and you >> can find quite a few complaints about that on various forums. > > > Ahhh -- my work doesn't allow me that "luxury". And frankly haven't > ever had the 2x4 hit me over the head to bring it to my attention. > But I can see why people would do it. I'll do a better job in the > future of checking for it. Luxury? :-) Testing with regular browser-options? I don't surf much, but I always design with such user-options in mind - like explained here... <http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_03_04.html> ...and it sure affects how I apply CSS, so we're right on-topic here on css-d ;-) > Wish you'd write that "in-depth article". I didn't think it were a need for it, since the basics are explained by others. Roger Johannson has an article on the subject... <http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200504/fixed_or_fluid_width_elastic/> ...but he hasn't bothered to make it work properly in IE6. (Last time I referred to RJ's article/method here on css-d, we had a long and somewhat "interesting" discussion which came pretty close to a flame-war. Let's avoid that this time around :-) ) The missing pieces for IE6 is what makes most "elastic" designs fail, thus I created a solution that works. There are probably other ways to do it, but I haven't found any out here that worked to my satisfaction. Most work like what you have now, and I don't think those are any good. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
