Lock the page-width

Hi All!

I'm having problems with www.suneworld.com
The thing is that I'd like to lock the width of the page, so that it won't
adjust dynamically.

Any CSS people out there that can help me?

Kind regards,
Sune Alexandersen

www.suneworld.com
Skype: sunepune
MSN: suneREMOVE__ME (AT) suneworld (DOT) com

In article Sune A wrote:

Hi All!

I'm having problems with www.suneworld.com
The thing is that I'd like to lock the width of the page, so that it won't
adjust dynamically.

Hm. Why. Usually people need CSS to make other peoples websites adjust
dynamically. Fixing width is bad idea. Givin it maximum width is little
better.

Anyway, you can use max-width to set maximum with of page. But it is much
better to set max-width based by parts of page, rather than whole. And it
is usually most sensible for text lines that come too long.

For example
p,li {max-width:30em;}


--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:13:48 +0100, Sune A wrote:

Hi All!

I'm having problems with www.suneworld.com
The thing is that I'd like to lock the width of the page, so that it won't
adjust dynamically.

I, along with most others I would bet would prefer a resizeable content
area.

Your site looks pretty good to me, other than the nav bar extending down
past the bottom on the right. A strategically placed clear:right will fix
that though.

I'm having problems with www.suneworld.com
The thing is that I'd like to lock the width of the page, so that it
won't
adjust dynamically.

Any CSS people out there that can help me?

You'll probably get people telling you it is 'a bad thing' to do this
but it is your call and it is easily achieved. You can simply set a
'width' on the body in css, or better still surround your page with a
div and set a width on that (the reason I say that is because I seem
to remember seeing it said that older versions of IE don't honour the
width on the body).

A compromise approach is to set a 'min-width' instead of the width so
that it will only reduce so far but can be enlarged. However IE
doesn't support this (though there is a JavaScript fudge about to
emulate it).

In article Graham J wrote:

A compromise approach is to set a 'min-width' instead of the width so
that it will only reduce so far but can be enlarged. However IE
doesn't support this (though there is a JavaScript fudge about to
emulate it).

Nooooooooooo. Min width is practically always very big mistake if page
would not be broken whitout it (like when you have columns that are too
narrow because they are based on percentage.) It is not problem to if the
page fits smaller window. Everybody using smaller window knows that. All
you could get by setting min-width is horizontal scrolbar whitout any
reason. That is not good aproach.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

Nooooooooooo.

Yes, actually. It would be very appropriate for the OP as the page
stands. You might not approve of the page design but that is the
author's choice.

Min width is practically always very big mistake if page
would not be broken whitout it (like when you have columns that are
too
narrow because they are based on percentage.) It is not problem to
if the
page fits smaller window. Everybody using smaller window knows that.
All
you could get by setting min-width is horizontal scrolbar whitout
any
reason. That is not good aproach.

Yes but the "if" in "if page would not be broken" is a very big "if"
indeed. If there is a point at which the page breaks, becomes
unreadable or unusable, or justs looks plain stupid, then preventing
that point being reached is a very good approach indeed.

In article <PrRrb.27290$jf4.1555520 (AT) news000 (DOT) worldonline.dk> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Sune A
<sune (AT) NO_SPAM4MEsuneworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Hi All!

I'm having problems with www.suneworld.com
The thing is that I'd like to lock the width of the page, so that it won't
adjust dynamically.

Any CSS people out there that can help me?

Not only are you trying to do a bad thing, you're asking in the
wrong way.

See "What is the accepted way to share a message across multiple
newsgroups?" at <http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/usenet/xpost.html>.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

In article Graham J wrote:

Nooooooooooo.

Yes, actually. It would be very appropriate for the OP as the page
stands. You might not approve of the page design but that is the
author's choice.

Really? I ignore stupid sizes by default so this has not real relevance
for my surfing. But if I wouldn't, I really would hate min-width used for
such.

OP's design is very good indeed, and I can use it in any size window I
wan't as long as it is bigger than image or size of float.

I see some bug in effect on Opera now when I disable my userstyle: image
with align=left makes words appear in wrong place. Easily fixed by using
full CSS, and adding float:left; (I wonder why it is still in Opera
7.22(pr), I added my userstyle img,table,...[align="left"] {float:left}
half year ago to counter that bug.)

Yes but the "if" in "if page would not be broken" is a very big "if"
indeed. If there is a point at which the page breaks, becomes
unreadable or unusable, or justs looks plain stupid, then preventing
that point being reached is a very good approach indeed.

Yes. But there is any width of window in which the page question would
break, exept when float will cause horizontal scrollbar, but that would
be fixed with max-width, not min-width.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

I don't know what the single quotes mean.

They are quotation marks used to quote an actual phrase that is
commonly seen. In common UK English single quotes can be interchanged
with double quotes and are often preferred for printed text. They
could have been left out of the sentence and it would still have read
fine but it would not have drawn attention to the particular phrase as
I required.

Please don't taunt the newbies with bogus information. There is no
way in the context of the www to "lock the width of the page," given
user stylesheets, browsers that ignore css, etc.

I do not consider it bogus information, it was an appropriate answer
to the question pitched at the appropriate level.

Sure users can override thing with user stylesheets or have browsers
that ignore css but they are the exception to the rule and there is a
very large potential audience out there that will not do any such
thing nor use such browsers.

In any case the requirement was to 'lock the width of the page' with
the important word being lock. If I lock my front door it doesn't
mean people can't enter my house. They may have their own key, go
through an open back door, go through a window, break in, etc. It
doesn't change the fact that I locked the door.

OP's design is very good indeed, and I can use it in any size window
I
wan't as long as it is bigger than image or size of float.

I guess it depends how you like to see pages displayed when the window
size is too small to display them without breaking them or otherwise
making them look too messy or unusable. If you first encounter a page
with a sufficiently big window and then reduce the size of the window
and it breaks then I agree it is no big deal. You recognise the
problem for what it is and resize the window again. It is what
happens when you encounter a page for the first time on too small a
window that seems to be where we may differ, and especially when it is
as a result of casual browsing rather than going to a site knowing
that there is something there for you.

If I understand you correctly it seems that your preference, and one
you consider many others have, is just to let them break (or
whatever), instantly recognise them as broken only because of the
window size, and just resize the window to fix them.

My preference is different and I consider it one that many others will
have. If I encounter a broken page (again using the term broken
loosely) then my first reaction is to recoil from it and move on
elsewhere. Resizing the window is only a secondary reaction and
depends on how badly the page is messed up and how I came to be on the
page. However if I encounter a relatively intact page and the browser
has displayed a horizontal scrollbars my instant reaction is that I
just need to resize the window to make the most of the page.