css-p

[mystrymaster]

Anyone out there designed and coded a site using only css-p for layout?

I was reading up on this and I was just curious if anyone has used this in a real world app. I know espn.com has used it and if you view there source it is actually quite immpressive.

[goldbug]

Okay, maybe I just haven't had enough caffiene today... what do you mean by "css-p"?

[stolzyboy]

looks to me like they used Javascript, CSS, and HTML, nope, never done that before :D

[goldbug]

Okay, I did a damn google search and think I found what you mean. I think you just mean "using CSS and XHTML the way it's intended" (with or without the "p" = positioning).

Yeah, I've done a handful of those, and yes, the markup is clean and spiffy.

If you really want to see nice use/abuse of CSS/XHTML, check out http://csszengarden.com/

[mystrymaster]

yeah ccs-p = positioning

That zen garden is sweet - what are the browser requirements for that.

What is the market share of those browsers?

[goldbug]

Requirements for what? Looking at the page?

The whole goal of that site is showcase the range of capabilities that separating layout from markup can provide (to graphic designers).

As far as browser req's go, I think it's intended for IE5(.5)+ and Mozilla 1+/Netscape 6+, but I'm sure it would work fine in Opera 7 too. Anything else is way too outdated, and shame on anyone for using something so old. :)

Besides, it shouldn't matter because you're using Mozilla/Firebird/Phoenix, RIGHT!? :) :)

Uh Oh.... you've awoken the sleeping Mozilla zealot!

[mystrymaster]

unfortunately I am stuck using IE 5.5 at work so there is nothing I can do about that :)


Yeah I was wondering browser rewuirements of the positioning of it to see if this is the way I should start going with some of the newer contracts I am in negotiations with.


Thanks

[goldbug]

Well, that depends alot on what is needed layout-wise, on the site.

As far as just plain old positioning, I've been doing that for years now. IE 4 could do rudimentary positioning, as well as Netscape 4, but both of those implementations sucked (Netscape4 was REALLY REALLY REALLY bad).

For most "tame" CSS voodoo, IE5+, Netscape 6+, Opera 6+ would be a safe bet for compatibility, and that covers quite a large percentage of the user base usually.

There are some things that are a huge pain in the ass if you try to implement using positioned layers (and NO tables). "Footers" for example. If you want a footer to cling to the bottom of the page, it can get hairy in most browsers (might be an implementation issue).

One little trick that I can offer, that will help you figure out alot of "trick" layouts: Negative margins. Use 'em. They rule.

[Weedpacket]

I recently came across css/edge (http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/index.html). For your purposes it may not be so great, because one of things the designer warns about is that he uses features of CSS that IE5.5 and IE6 fail to support (or have buggy or only partial support for). OTOH, that does mean you know someof the things you might need to look out for. (It looks and works much better in Mozilla...).

[elToro]

I've been using CSS for layout almost exclusively for probably a year and a half. I still use a hybrid of CSS and a TABLE or two when a customer absolutely must have the site maintain the same basic appearance in NS4, but I'm sometimes able to pull that off even without resorting to tables.

I'm all for using (X)HTML for its intended purpose: structure.