What's the level of support for min-height?

Like so much else that is CSS you add these into your box of tricks
when compliance reaches most of the browsing audience and failure is not
catastrophic.

I see there's hacks to prop up boxes using something floated,
probably right.


Jeff

On Wed, 23 May 2007 16:24:23 GMT, Jeff <EMAIL REMOVED> wrote:

> What's the level of support for min-height?
>
> Like so much else that is CSS you add these into your box of tricks
>when compliance reaches most of the browsing audience and failure is not
>catastrophic.

You imply that you misunderstand the basic principal of CSS.

A web page utilising CSS enhancements should still appear fully
functional when the client's browser does not support CSS.

Failure of the page to do so, is not a failure of the browser, not a
failure of CSS, but rather a failure of the author of the page.

Matt


--
Want to consistently win at poker? Learn how here!

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/...N_AT_POKER.HTM

Matt Probert wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 16:24:23 GMT, Jeff <EMAIL REMOVED> wrote:
>
>
>> What's the level of support for min-height?
>>
>> Like so much else that is CSS you add these into your box of tricks
>>when compliance reaches most of the browsing audience and failure is not
>>catastrophic.
>
>
> You imply that you misunderstand the basic principal of CSS.
>
> A web page utilising CSS enhancements should still appear fully
> functional when the client's browser does not support CSS.

Who is talking about a browser that doesn't support CSS?

But along the way there has been some very buggy implementations of CSS.
NS4 and padding in it's box model springs to mind where you could have
a perfectly readable web page in a non CSS browser like NS3 and you
would have an unreadable mess in NS4 with boxes overlapping just because
you had some padding. I can think of some rather severe problems with
font sizing in more recent browsers (using ems or %) where you can wind
up with vanishingly small text because the browser didn't understand
inheritance properly.

What browser are you using that doesn't support any CSS?

>
> Failure of the page to do so, is not a failure of the browser, not a
> failure of CSS, but rather a failure of the author of the page.

Yeah yeah yeah. Seperating content from presentation. But if the
presentation sucks you won't have many clients.

Jeff
>
> Matt
>
>

Jeff wrote:
> Matt Probert wrote:
>>
>> A web page utilising CSS enhancements should still appear fully
>> functional when the client's browser does not support CSS.
>
> Who is talking about a browser that doesn't support CSS?

It's not a browser support issue. CSS is supposed to be optional, so the
page still has to make sense when CSS isn't applied.

> What browser are you using that doesn't support any CSS?

I disable stylesheets surprisingly often, usually because of inflexible
design choices by the author that impair usability.

> Yeah yeah yeah. Seperating content from presentation. But if the
> presentation sucks you won't have many clients.

And if the presentation is implemented poorly you won't leave your
client's visitors much choice but to disable or override author
stylesheets, or go elsewhere.

--
Berg

Jeff wrote:

> What browser are you using that doesn't support any CSS?

http://offbyone.com/

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Bergamot wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
>>Matt Probert wrote:
>>
>>>A web page utilising CSS enhancements should still appear fully
>>>functional when the client's browser does not support CSS.
>>
>>Who is talking about a browser that doesn't support CSS?
>
>
> It's not a browser support issue. CSS is supposed to be optional, so the
> page still has to make sense when CSS isn't applied.
>
>
>> What browser are you using that doesn't support any CSS?
>
>
> I disable stylesheets surprisingly often, usually because of inflexible
> design choices by the author that impair usability.
>
>
>> Yeah yeah yeah. Seperating content from presentation. But if the
>>presentation sucks you won't have many clients.
>
>
> And if the presentation is implemented poorly you won't leave your
> client's visitors much choice but to disable or override author
> stylesheets, or go elsewhere.

You are an exception. I doubt that even fewer people disable
stylesheets than disable javascript.

But since the original question was the level of support for
min-height (the only thing snipped) I guess that nobody here knows or
cares about that.

Not a big deal, I'll just wait another couple years or so to use it
as it appears to not be implemented in IE6 windows. And my potential
useage was minor, in lieu of padding-bottom for very short pages.

I don't know what kind of websites you design, but I have yet to meet
a client who didn't care about page appearance. Frankly if browser
implementation of CSS was more uniform we'd see more commercial
tableless layouts. The only one I know of at the moment is
washingtonpost.com.

Jeff
>

Jeff wrote:
>
> I don't know what kind of websites you design, but I have yet to meet
> a client who didn't care about page appearance.

I never said appearance wasn't important. Too often, however, the
designer puts more importance on it than on usability - the old form
over function, make the web mimic print etc. mindset.

There is a happy medium. Please go find it.

> Frankly if browser
> implementation of CSS was more uniform we'd see more commercial
> tableless layouts.

You must be new to the game. The pro's, con's, browser bugs and work
arounds regarding CSS have been pretty well known around here for
several years. If you spent a little time reading the newsgroup
archives, you might learn more about it.

The fact that most big commercial web sites haven't made the switch is
irrelevant. They're probably too bogged down in bureaucracy to do much
about it, plus it's no small expense to overhaul such a site.

--
Berg

Bergamot wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
>
>> I don't know what kind of websites you design, but I have yet to meet
>>a client who didn't care about page appearance.
>
>
> I never said appearance wasn't important. Too often, however, the
> designer puts more importance on it than on usability - the old form
> over function, make the web mimic print etc. mindset.
>
> There is a happy medium. Please go find it.

Perhaps you should?
>
>
>>Frankly if browser
>>implementation of CSS was more uniform we'd see more commercial
>>tableless layouts.
>
>
> You must be new to the game. The pro's, con's, browser bugs and work
> arounds regarding CSS have been pretty well known around here for
> several years. If you spent a little time reading the newsgroup
> archives, you might learn more about it.

Odd that you should say that as *you* clipped the section of this post
that shows that I've been around for quite a while.

You should also be aware that workarounds are just that and it's
possible for them to fail in the next generation of browsers.

If I could have found the list of which browsers support min-height I
never would have asked the question, instead of getting involved in some
weird tired old argument of web politics.
>
> The fact that most big commercial web sites haven't made the switch is
> irrelevant.

Complex tabless layout are not trivial. If support for inline-block was
more widespread this would be much easier.

Jeff

They're probably too bogged down in bureaucracy to do much
> about it, plus it's no small expense to overhaul such a site.
>

Jeff wrote:
>
> You should also be aware that workarounds are just that and it's
> possible for them to fail in the next generation of browsers.

No browser will ever support 100% of CSS (or anything else) and be
bug-free about it. Just about any property/value/whatever you have a
mind to use may not work correctly in some browser. Accept that and move on.

> If I could have found the list of which browsers support min-height I
> never would have asked the question, instead of getting involved in some
> weird tired old argument of web politics.

You didn't look very hard
http://www.google.com/search?q=brows...r%20min-height

--
Berg