From: dorayme on
In article <hq8rna$pri$1(a)>,
Jeff Thies <jeff_thies(a)> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <hq7eo6$226$1(a)>,
> > Gregor Kofler <usenet(a)> wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme meinte:
> >>
> >>> I note you have solved prob to your satisfaction. But that has
> >>> never stopped me talking anyway.
> >> I know. However, since your comments are pretty useful most of the time...
> >>
> >>> Presumably you know about trouble that happens with your stated
> >>> url re the header and even text breaking out (to the right) of
> >>> the nice rectangular home at even reasonable (but not widescreen
> >>> wide) browser widths?
> >> Yes. I find horizontal problems much easier to solve than vertical ones.
> >> But that's perhaps just me. (Solved BTW, relying on min- and max-width;
> >> will likely break in IE6.)
> >>
> >
> > Yes, they are easier mostly. It is not just you, heights are
> > always a bit trickier. I like to leave them alone! Sticky footers
> > and anything to do with controlling heights are interesting as
> > exercises but in practice I actually like footers to simply go in
> > the flow and end below the rest and I doubt it bothers folk if
> > they do not stick to the bottom. So much easier to maintain and
> > less css and mark up.
> What's wrong with position: fixed? There's an IE6 fix, I've posted
> before.
Nothing wrong in particular. Especially if done nicely so the
scrolling rest of page does not look cut off all the time. There
is a natural feel to the way it operates when you don't fix
things. Fixed left panel and margined left content to clear is
fine but it is often a different feeling with fixed tops and
bottoms. I was born over sensitive, it is terrible. <g>

> I see limited use for sticky footers, just once for me, as navigation
> for an image gallery where you didn't want to have to scroll for the
> nav. Since most footers are just a reprise of nav that is elsewhere.
> There are some designs (none, I've had to do) where a fixed footer would
> be needed, otherwise min-height is more useful.