G'day > Firstly, what kind of measurement is ex?
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units Relative units are: em: the 'font-size' of the relevant font ex: the 'x-height' of the relevant font px: pixels, relative to the viewing device I tend to use a mixture of em and px. Have never used ex but it may have its uses. > I have never seen that before. Secondly, how would a > fluid width layout work with a faux column like I've > used? I guess it wouldn't. Eric Meyer may have a solution. http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2004/09/03/sliding-faux-columns/ My own point of view (purists won't agree but I can live with that): if it's easily done with a simple, css styled table, why go out on a limb with complex CSS and background images. In many cases the difference in download is minimal, and without the need to download a background image, the (single, not nested) table approach can be more efficient. I prefer not to use background images if all I want is a plain colo(u)r. > Since the graphic is 780px wide, surely the container has > to be 780px wide too. No? If the image is presentational only, make it a background (perhaps ironic given what I said above) Otherwise you might try specifying its size in em's so it will scale up/down as appropriate. 780px is too wide for many people who still run at a resolution of 800x600. Why annoy them with horizontal scrollbars? Regards -- Bert Doorn, Web Developer Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au Fast-loading, user-friendly websites. ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
