11 aug 2014 kl. 12:25 skrev Tim Dawson <t...@ramasaig.com>: >> One word: Flexibility with contained order. > But I think I can already do that with floated <divs>, which are even more > flexible since they > can be any % of the container width (must add to 100%, of course). 'Contained > order' suggests a > bit more, but only that things should line up vertically and not be all over > the place ? (with which I'd agree).
Line up to the established grid of the designers choice, that’s all. The actual elements and CSS used are completely irrelevant here as long as you achieve the objective. > > So I'd have (say) a 60% div and a 40% div (58.33% and 41.67% if I must be in > twelfths). I can't see why I need an 8.33% div. In short, I'm still missing > the point. I’d expect that would know of that you can use content column width divisions for some content and that further down (vertically) you can choose others that still do adhere to the same basic grid. Grids are not the same as grid frameworks. It sounds to me you mixing these concepts up. You don’t need a framework in order to use grids. All you need is the ability to choose and use grids as a concept and a tool. That’s all you need. ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
