Am Mittwoch, 31. August 2011, 20:50:24 schrieb Michael Pyne: > On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 19:27:55 Burkhard L?ck wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 28. August 2011, 03:18:52 schrieb Michael Pyne: > > > On Thursday, August 25, 2011 16:17:04 Burkhard L?ck wrote: > > > > > Change padding-bottom under contentBody in kde-doc.css. 1em looks > > > > > decent to me, whereas now it's at 8.9! > > > > > > IIRC the amount of padding was in order to ensure that the footer > > > appears at the *bottom* of very short pages. It should be compensated > > > for by a corresponding negative padding-bottom (or some other CSS > > > hack) elsewhere. > > > > Yes, that makes sense and explains this for me until now "strange" > > padding- bottom value. > > > > But we have roughly only 10-20% short pages, where this amount of padding > > is usefull. > > The padding is not supposed to affect the normal length pages. I'll explain > by answering your next point. > > > > Adjusting the difference between that negative padding and the large > > > padding should change the amount of space between the last line of text > > > and the footer on large pages, just please make sure it still pushes > > > the footer to the bottom for very short pages on reasonable screen > > > heights. > > > > I hardly understand what you are talking about, my css skills are near to > > zero... > > CSS uses a "box model" to layout elements, with many (if not all) of the > attributes of that box modifiable in CSS. If you don't specify any of those > attributes then they simply end up getting laid out generally from top to > bottom, as close together as possible. > > I had thought in my email last week that I had forced the footer to the > bottom by using an artificially-large content area on top of the footer, > and then used negative CSS margins to collapse some of that extra area to > avoid showing scrollbars. Looking at the kde-docs.css closer I don't see > any negative margins or padding though (although there is still the large > padding mentioned previously). I think I will have to look at this closer. > Your responsiveness is really appreciated by me.
Thanks Michael -- Burkhard L?ck
