On Nov 9, 2011, at 22:48 , G.Sørtun wrote: > On 09.11.2011 22:24, mem wrote: > >> it will assume the max-width value as width correct ? > > Yes, but I advice against relying on default behavior across browser-land - > especially for legacy browsers - when adding 'width: 100%' (or something) > costs so little.
I understand and will take it as a golden rule. Better to explicit declare that to expect that the browser will do that accordingly. We have suffered enough with IE and old FF for not learning with mistakes. :) > >> If so, how can I declare those base 60em as stated on a) ? > > If the layout permits you can declare 'max-width: __px' on one container and > 'max-width: __em' on another. Ok. And why will I need one in px and another in em ? I'm not getting what will that do, should that have the same measures like: 960px and 60em ? > Remember also that 'body' is just another container in standard-based web > design, so the number of containers in a layout can be kept relatively small > without loosing styling-flexibility. Great recall. I presume that body will have some sort of background image so I cannot narrow it, and it should be as wide as the viewport unfortunately. > If those containers have 'width: 100%' declared they can be styled to > interact in perfect harmony with min/max-width declared with different units. So this means adding and extra container with no semantic propose other then dealing with this ? I normally tend to avoid extra markup. > > regards > Georg > Thanks for your patience. I'm trying to understand how will rules behave here, but I'm getting a little lost… Thanks again, mem ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
