Thanks for your pointers, unfortunately it's for a client intranet site and they exclusively use I.E. 6 (more's the pitty) . I modified your suggestion to used position: absolute and have a fixed height (which i can just about work with) , which although means i don't get the same scroll bar behaviour does seem to work fine.
Am I right in thinking i would use the "MIME Map" section of the "Http Headers" tab in the IIS properties for a particular site to change how the pages are served?
Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Christian Montoya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/16/05, CHRISTOPHER MEEK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> I'm attempting to move a site away from using 10's of nested tables towards
> using just CSS
>
> I have a layout with 3 vertical elements, a header a footer and the content
>
> The header, obviously sits quietly at the top of the screen but will chane
> size depending on content
>
> The content comes next with overflow: auto so that it scrolls as needed
>
> The footer needs to sit permanently at the bottom of the screen.
>
What you really want is a fixed header and footer. I'm not sure how
desirable this is since this consumes a lot of screen space, but for
most browsers it's as simple as applying position:fixed to both divs.
So you would have:
#header { position:fixed; top:0; left:0; width:100%; }
#footer { position:fixed; bottom:0; left:0; width:100%; }
The reason to use position:fixed is that it allows the user to use
their default browser scrollbar to scroll the content, which is much
more accessible than internal scrollbars. The problem is getting this
to work with older browsers like IE 6. If you really want to consume
the space and you want to take the time to make this work with
browsers like IE 6, let us know.
Otherwise if you don't care so much about the accessibility part then
you can just combine some other form of position and give the content
overflow:auto.
I'm sure someone else can explain one of these techniques better than I can.
> Plus, I'm using an XHTML 1.1 doctype.
>
Are you serving the webpages as mime-type "application/xhtml+xml" ?
Because that is the only mime-type that should be used with XHTML 1.1.
Otherwise if you are going to use "text/html" then you should use
XHTML 1.0 Strict or HTML 4.01 Strict. There are only 3, exactly 3
differences between XHTML 1.0 Strict and XHTML 1.1, and unless you are
serving "application/xhtml+xml" you should not be using 1.1.
If you want to know why there's a thread in the archives all about that.
--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
