How to make footer at the bottom in 5 box 3 columns layout

Peter Diedrich <pdiedrich (AT) gmx (DOT) de> wrote:

http://mikewilcox.curvedspaces.com/demo1.html
http://mikewilcox.curvedspaces.com/demo2.html
Thanks for your effort but sorry, no joy in IE6.

position: fixed; has never worked in IE.

Works only in Firefox
here and even then the footer is overlaying the content

It isn't overlapping in demo2, and I made it so it wouldn't. Exactly what do
you want? You could change demo1 so the div has a width of 100%, which might
make it look to some that the content is not being overlapped.

Yes, this would exactly be my definition. A page should work on IE4.
Gotcha :-)

It certainly would work, but not with any style, and there's several ways to
do this.
http://w3development.de/css/hide_css...wsers/summary/

I would be attracted to bet with you a Whopper that more people are
using IE4 vs. a text browser.

I don't know that I care that much. They'll still get the same page, with
all the same content, but without my presentation suggestions. That doesn't
matter to me since I can write semantically correct pages.

But as long as the
browser are not working as smoothly with CSS as they do with tables,
how can people promote coding in CSS?

Many people don't use tables for presentation because that's not
semantically what they're for. CSS accomplishes many layout techniques and
maintains a structurally sound page. This page can be viewed by all browsers
and remain logical.

This was riddled with inconsistencies,
and many developers (myself included) simply don't style for it. NS4
will only get the plain (but still entirely useful) page without
style from me (that, or one with few style suggestions).

So you are comfortably doing so well, that you can effort to keep more
NN4 users in front of your door than I do without the speech/text
browser guys with "my" tables?!

"In front of my door"? As in they can't see my site? Certainly not, I took
time so that even the most baisc (or broken) browser could still view my
page. Maybe they don't get as many neat colors, but they still get a page
with the same, logical content.

IE for Mac has just about as bad of
support as it does on Windows.
And yet another crowd of people you are saying "Sorry, you are not
welcome here".

See above.
--
Michael Wilcox
mjwilco at yahoo dot com
Essential Tools for the Web Developer - http://mikewilcox.t35.com

On 2 Mar 2004 10:11:27 -0800, Peter Diedrich <pdiedrich (AT) gmx (DOT) de> wrote:

What you are talking about? Show me *one* site that produces a footer at
the bottom of each printed page.

http://www.wired.com/animation/

That's a frameset.

...plus thousands more. Stephen, tell us, which internet are you
actually using? ;-)


Yes - a footer at the bottom of each *web* page. Precisely. No problems
there.
But you were asking for a footer at the bottom of the *window* - weren't
you?

Of course of every *web* page. Have I not posted to "authoring.html"?

See, here's the miscommunication. The bottom of the webpage might not be
as far down as the bottom of the viewport. The "paper" might be as tall as
the viewport, shorter, or longer. Longer pages require us to scroll down.
Shorter pages have their bottom edge in the middle somewhere.

The reason it's so hard to adequately do what you ask is because unless
you have content that stretches it out, the page might not get to the
bottom edge.

Yes, other sites do this. It is done as a frameset or a table. It's my
opinion that either of those techniques will hurt you more than help you.
If you really have to do this, set up a frameset or do table layout.

But I don't see why it's such a crisis that a footer doesn't carry all the
way down. Don't you see, the pages aren't all the same size, even though
your viewport is the same size.

I am amazed how hardly someone can misunderstand what I want. I always
thought, everybody would know what a footer is and where it has to be.
I sincerely apologize for not being clear enough.

Anybody out there who knows what a footer is and what I mean? Is it
really THIS difficult?

1) Don't be rude, it will get you nowhere.

2) If I haven't gotten it here, and no one else has either, maybe the
fault lies not with everyone else but with you?

Peter Diedrich <pdiedrich (AT) gmx (DOT) de> wrote:

No, have you actually ever tried IE6 together with the bottom:0px
thing? It behaves ridiculous. The footer overlays the content.

bottom: 0; along with position: fixed; is supposed to overlay the content,
and that's what it does in FB as well. And yes, it is stupid in IE, but
that's no surprise.

Yes, either they say "NN4 or Mac IE go elsewhere"

Wrong.

If content is less to fill the browser THEN footer stay in the bottom
of viewport ELSE footer should be at the end of the page (eventually
out of the viewport)

The best I can do is what's on demo1 (
http://mikewilcox.curvedspaces.com/demo1.html ) right now. You can
experiment with different ammounts of content. There is a hack for IE in
there, sorry if you don't like it.
--
Michael Wilcox
mjwilco at yahoo dot com
Essential Tools for the Web Developer - http://mikewilcox.t35.com

On 2 Mar 2004 10:20:59 -0800, Peter Diedrich <pdiedrich (AT) gmx (DOT) de> wrote:

This is the point. You are wrong. If a book's page is almost empty,
the page counter will still sitting in the bottom and not in the
middle of the page.
The page may have the same physical height, but the text has not. Any
my "page" is the FIXED browser window height. At least the browser
window height is normally fixed during a surf session.

Some of my books are 9 inches tall, and the page number is about 8 1/2
inches from the top. Other books are 5" tall, and the page number is
closer to the top. Now, if I was reading through an 8" wide by 6" high
hole, the first book would be taller (and maybe wider) than the
"viewport", and I'd have to "scroll down" to see the page number. Reading
the second book, the page number would not be at the bottom of my
"viewport" as the content does not reach that far!

With paper, we control the display. With webpages, we do not. That's why
this comparison is flawed.

Let go of the idea that printed media is a literal model to follow. It's
like trying to use an oilpaint knife with pastels. It's the wrong
technique for that medium.

Peter Diedrich wrote:
[snip]

I am amazed how hardly someone can misunderstand what I want. I always
thought, everybody would know what a footer is and where it has to be.
I sincerely apologize for not being clear enough.

Anybody out there who knows what a footer is and what I mean? Is it
really THIS difficult?

I suggest you simply make it clear what you mean, and stop the debate. (If you
don't, people will rightly draw their own conclusions).

By "footer", do you mean some material at the bottom of the web page? In other
words, rendering after all other content of the web page? If you mean this,
you have a *very* strong case. This is a very sensible & important
requirement.

Or do you mean some material that you want to be positioned (where possible)
at the end of the viewport? This is *vastly* different. And if you mean this,
you face some serious questions. There is little logic for that, and it might
confuse some users.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

On 2 Mar 2004 09:57:22 -0800, pdiedrich (AT) gmx (DOT) de (Peter Diedrich) declared
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

On the other hand there are so many sites which can
do it. So how, pleeeease?

If there are so many sites that do it, find one and steal their course
code. If you are having so much trouble finding a way to do it, there
can't be that many out there that have achieved it.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

Harlan Messinger wrote:
[snip]

Are you saying that millions of web designers around the world are
wrong to be doing it the way virtually all of them do it, and only
you have the Correct, Enlightened approach? 'Cause if everyone were
doing it the way you say is the correct way, then surely you would
have found millions of resources telling you how to do it, and all
the major browsers would support it.
[snip]

If there are millions of web designers involved in 5-box 3-column layouts,
then their consensus is:

- A banner at the top. This identifies the web site. Below this:

- 3 columns, typically site-navigation, an article, and side-notes (for
supplementary material) on the right.

- Adminstrative material at the bottom of the content, where it is available
if needed, but doesn't otherwise clutter up the main view.

That is how I read the original post. If that was the intent, it makes lots of
sense. It is a web equivalent of rather different layout on paper, but
catering for the special nature of the web. It works very well.

Trying to fit things into the viewport is very dodgy. The CSS2 recommendation
attempted this, and frankly screwed up. See:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visure...ed-positioning

I put their proposal into a web page, and it doesn't work properly:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl...s2_example.htm

I don't think those W3C people were really into page layout!

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

Why do you think a browser is supposed to look like a book?

Well... why not (regarding the footer)? Again, please do not ride on
definitions. I just wanted a footer, not endless debates. Why are you
chatting around about this and that. If you do not have a solution for
the OP, stop chatting in this thread, please.

Are you saying that millions of web designers around the world are wrong to
be doing it the way virtually all of them do it, and only you have the
Correct, Enlightened approach? 'Cause if everyone were doing it the way you
say is the correct way, then surely you would have found millions of
resources telling you how to do it, and all the major browsers would support
it.

I do not understand what you mean, but *I* like a footer at the bottom
of the browser. Period.

By invoking
Word you are not explaining why you think that in a browser window, the
footer should appear fixed at the bottom of the window instead of
flowing at
the bottom of the document.

Must I explain the reason why want the footer at the botton before I
get the answer how to do it?

Then you must be horrified by all the short pages you see on the web.

Depends on the layout. If the footer would have a dark background,
indeed I would be horrorfied.

Apparently those of us you're conversing with here don't thing anything is
wrong with it.

I never asked for other opinions with my OP. Just for a trick to do
footers.

I give up now. What strange forum here. I am impressed by the
responsiveness on the one hand but what is it worth if the net output
is below zero?! Just look at this thread from the beginning and you
all will shake your heads.

Have a nice day.

Peter.

On 2 Mar 2004 15:26:46 -0800, Peter Diedrich <pdiedrich (AT) gmx (DOT) de> wrote:

I never asked for other opinions with my OP. Just for a trick to do
footers.

And I've given you two. Tables and framesets.

I give up now. What strange forum here. I am impressed by the
responsiveness on the one hand but what is it worth if the net output
is below zero?! Just look at this thread from the beginning and you
all will shake your heads.

Have a nice day.

Either you are a troll or you really have no clue that I gave you two
solutions to your problem.

On 2 Mar 2004 15:26:46 -0800, pdiedrich (AT) gmx (DOT) de (Peter Diedrich) declared
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

If you do not have a solution for the OP, stop chatting in this thread, please.

Sorry, this is Usenet. Or did I miss the post where you sent us your
credit card details?

Must I explain the reason why want the footer at the botton before I
get the answer how to do it?

You have already been given the possible solutions numerous times, along
with the problems they cause.

Depends on the layout. If the footer would have a dark background,
indeed I would be horrorfied.

So give the page a dark background too. Then if the page is longer than
the viewport, there's no difference, if it is shorter than the viewport
the footer doesn't look out of place.

I never asked for other opinions with my OP. Just for a trick to do
footers.

Again, this is Usenet. Not your 24-hour helpdesk.

I give up now. What strange forum here. I am impressed by the
responsiveness on the one hand but what is it worth if the net output
is below zero?! Just look at this thread from the beginning and you
all will shake your heads.

Indeed I am. You have been told that it isn't a good idea to even try.
You have also been given the possible solutions, but you just don't want
to listen. If you want someone to tell you what you want to hear, pay
them.

Have a nice day.

I will. :-)

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au