Am I right? I'm asking, not proclaiming.....
Code like this is perhaps useful because it solves a problem. But it's a
hard-coded hack relying on unintended side effects and more likely than not
to sometime break in the future. More likely than more standard codes that
don't exploit side effects (negative margins and hard-coded pixels etc)
It relies on hard-coding and coupling footer-height in pixels to codes
relating to the page-wrap block, that in a better world would be modular
and independent. And not so tightly coupled. There must be a better way.
I'll have to read through the entire thread to see what other solutions
there are. I do it with fixed positioning on my little (amateur) website.
.page-wrap {
min-height: 100%;
/* equal to footer height */
margin-bottom: -142px;
}
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Debbie Campbell <d...@redkitecreative.com>
wrote:
> I stripped out all the sticky footer code and tried a few other methods,
> this one worked and tested down to IE8 with no problems:
>
> http://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/sticky-footer/
>>
>
> The footer is now where it should be. Thank you for your input everyone.
>
> http://www.redkitecreative.com/dev/boisson/
>>
>
> Also I fixed the :focus state for links, thanks for that too.
>
> --
> Debbie
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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/
>
--
/* Colin (Sandy) Pittendrigh >--oO0> */
______________________________________________________________________
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/
