We’ve all heard the rap:
“Sites designed with CSS tend to be boxy and hard-edged. Where are the rounded corners?”
Answer: the rounded corners are right here. In this article, we’ll show how customized borders and corners can be applied to fully fluid and flexible layouts with dynamic content, using sound and semantically logical markup.
The markup#section2
In the example markup below, XHTML line breaks have been inserted to pad out dummy paragraphs:
<h2>Article header</h2>
<p>
A few paragraphs of article text.<br />
A few paragraphs of article text.
</p>
<p>
A few paragraphs of article text.<br />
A few paragraphs of article text.
</p>
<p>
A paragraph containing author information
</p></code></pre><h2>The hooks</h2>If we want full control of the layout, we need to make sure we have enough elements we can target with our CSS. Let’s call these elements “hooks.” Our markup needs just a few more.First of all, let’s wrap the whole article in a containing <code title="structural division">div</code>, and then wrap each structural section in an appropriate element:<pre><code><strong>
<div class="Article">
<h2>Article header</h2> <div class="ArticleBody">
<p>
A few paragraphs of article text.<br />
A few paragraphs of article text.
</p> <p>
A few paragraphs of article text.<br />
A few paragraphs of article text.
</p>
</div>
<div class="ArticleFooter">
<p>
A paragraph containing author information
</p>
</div>
</div>If we examine the markup, we’ll see that we have given ourselves at least five hooks, which is all we need to place customized graphics in each of the four corners (and left side) of our article.
See Step 1 — primary markup.
The design#section3
First let’s decide on some basic layout parameters. Our graphic designer gave us this mockup for reference:
“I want the borders and corners to look something like this,” he said. He also told us to be aware of the fact that all articles may have different widths and heights, and that he still wasn’t sure what kind of background he wanted the articles to have. In fact, he wasn’t even sure those were the borders he wanted.
“Could you leave that open, or make it so that it’s easy to change?” he asked.
The process#section4
We intend to keep the number of hooks as low as possible, so we’ll have to pay extra attention when we start to prepare the images for our solution, and make sure that the graphics we need are suitable to be hooked up to elements already present in our document.
We have a div containing the whole article. That’ll do for our top left corner and top and left sides. Header elements are block-level by default, and we’ll take advantage of their behavior: they extend to the full width of their parent element. So we’ll use the <h2> element for our top right corner.
We’ll use our article-footer div for the bottom left corner — and the contained paragraph for our bottom right corner.
Step 1.1 shows how we slice up the sketch.
Note: Obviously, you can use any element to hook graphics up with. Your document’s markup is unlikely to exactly match the structure used in our example. For all we know, you may only have a single paragraph of text to which you hope to apply customized corners and borders. You can easily do so.As stated earlier, all you need is at least four structural elements. (Depending on the height of your element you may require five.)
If necessary, these elements could be nonsemantic divs, each with its own class. Just remember that for a div element to be rendered, it must contain content to manifest its presence. Also keep in mind that if your content lends itself to common structural elements such as headers, paragraphs, and so on, you can and should use those instead of relying on nonsemantic divs.
The styles#section5
To continue, let’s turn on element borders and set a relative width for the div that contains the whole article, to see how things behave:
div.Article {
width:35%;
border: 1px solid red; }
div.Article h2 {
border: 1px solid blue; }
div.ArticleBody {
border: 1px solid black; }
div.ArticleFooter {
border: 1px solid blue; }
div.ArticleFooter p {
border: 1px solid magenta; }See Step 2 — basic element behaviour
Nothing really surprising here. We do, however, take notice of the gaps appearing before and after our div class=“ArticleBody”. Ignoring that problem for now, we’ll go on and write ourselves a style sheet:
body {
background: #cbdea8;
font: 0.7em/1.5 Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
}
div.Article {
background:
url(images/custom_corners_topleft.gif)
top left no-repeat;
width:35%;
}
div.Article h2 {
background:
url(images/custom_corners_topright.gif)
top right no-repeat;
}
div.ArticleBody {
background:
url(images/custom_corners_rightborder.gif)
top right repeat-y;
}
div.ArticleFooter {
background:
url(images/custom_corners_bottomleft.gif)
bottom left no-repeat;
}
div.ArticleFooter p {
background:
url(images/custom_corners_bottomright.gif)
bottom right no-repeat;
}See Step 3 — first attempt.
Not bad at all! Actually better than we expected. Obviously we need to add some padding to our respective elements to make the layout look better — and then there are those pesky gaps to fix. The gaps are caused by the carriage returns inserted by our paragraph (block) elements. We could avoid using paragraph elements altogether and thereby bypass the problem, but — for reasons well-known to ALA readers — we prefer to keep our markup structurally clean and logical. It isn’t our data’s fault that we are lazy stylers.
In our first pass, we assumed that a carriage return must equal 1.5em, as that was the value we specified for our line-height. Therefore our first attempt was to add a margin-top:-1.5em to our ArticleBody and ArticleFooter. It worked perfectly in most standards-compatible browsers — all except the ones used by the 94% of internet users on this planet (no names, please).After testing, trial, error, rinse, and repeat we find that we must use at least a margin-top:-2em to be sure that the elements touch and the gap closes:
div.Article {
background:
url(images/custom_corners_topleft.gif)
top left no-repeat;
width:35%;
}
div.Article h2 {
background:
url(images/custom_corners_topright.gif)
top right no-repeat;
font-size:1.3em;
padding:15px;
margin:0;
}
div.ArticleBody {
background:
url(images/custom_corners_rightborder.gif)
top right repeat-y;
margin:0;
margin-top:-2em;
padding:15px;
}
div.ArticleFooter {
background:
url(images/custom_corners_bottomleft.gif)
bottom left no-repeat;
}
div.ArticleFooter p {
background:
url(images/custom_corners_bottomright.gif)
bottom right no-repeat;
display:block;
padding:15px;
margin:-2em 0 0 0;
}Step 4 —looks like we’re finally there!
Backward compatibility?#section6
If you’ve been viewing this example in Netscape 4.x, you’ve probably noticed that the page shows up blank. We’ve found no way to get this technique to work acceptably in NS 4.x, so instead we’re going to hide the styles that the browser in question cannot render properly. NS 4.x does not understand style tags with media=“all” specified and we’ve taken advantage of that in the example that follows. We’ve made two style tags, one with styles we want all browsers to render, and another we intend to hide from NS 4.x. Even though it breaks our heart to do so, we’ve also changed our font size specification from ems to pixels. You wanted backward compatibility — you’ve got it.
Step 5 — graceful degradation in NS 4.x
The real world#section7
“Yeah — but we want to see real-world applications, mate,” you say. We anticipated that and provided an example of the technique applied in a more advanced context. We borrowed an already thoroughly tested layout from Alex Robinson, and applied our styles to it — and we’re glad we did!Our first attempt unleashed a cavalcade of calamities in IE6/Win, triggering bugs affecting z-index stacking level of our elements. Entire elements disappeared; margins acted like children kept up long past their bedtime. It was a mess.
Then we learned that a simple position:relative and a well positioned <br /> could fix everything. View the source in Step 6 for further investigation.
Step 6 — our attempt at applying our technique to a full-fledged layout with headers, columns, and footers
Limitations#section8
If you have been paying attention, you probably realize this example only plays well with surrounding, solid-color backgrounds. With this method we need to cover the graphics from the top left corner with the graphics in the top right corner.
If we made the top right corner graphic transparent, the top left graphic beneath it would show. Same goes for the bottom. And that is indeed a limitation. Perhaps in a Part II edition of this article we will show how to work with gradient backgrounds.Meanwhile, this article demonstrates a generic method, with backward compatibilty and sound markup in mind, and it is our sincere hope that this will inspire a lot of offspring and ideas — perhaps even some that avoid the need to work with solid background colors.
Acknowledgements#section9
Brian Alvey for discussions, insisting on graceful degradation and real world examples, and David Schontzler for helping a Danish dude write technical text in English.
Editor’s note#section10
While we were preparing this ALA issue for publication, designer Ryan Thrash came up with a nearly identical approach to the problem of creating rounded CSS boxes based on semantically correct markup. Thrash and Madsen came up with their approaches independently of each other; both authors acknowledge the influence of Douglas Bowman’s previous ALA articles, Sliding Doors of CSS (20 October 2003) and Sliding Doors of CSS II (30 October 2003).Independently of all that, ALA systems designer Brian Alvey previously crafted a different approach to rounded corners, which may be seen at Weblogs, Inc. It’s all good. — Ed.
… in the CSS!
Seems to me you can either hack the HTML, by using inappropriate tables on every page of your site, or you can hack a single CSS file and leave your HTML clean & semantic.
I know which one I prefer!
While this is one of the better rounded corner solutions i’ve seen so far, I’m concerned about its dependence on image size for scaling. Why cache a 800+ x 800+ pixel image multiple times across a single page just so the boxes scale properly?
A great solution, although full of “hacks”, is http://www.albin.net/CSS/roundedCorners/ . It’s not nearly as elegant as that which you’ve provided, but it does allow slightly more flexibility. Any thoughts? One problem I have with the albin.net technique is my embedded divs (placed within the content of the cell) blow the borders off in IE6/PC.
When using fancy dropshadowed borders, I can see the value in this, but it just seems a bit odd to require a gigantic background if all the user needs is a single-pixel border.
Mozilla supports corner radius attributes for block elements. Looks like they are thinking ahead! You could just be nice to all your mozilla users and have perty rounded corners for just them. 🙂
Great article! Alistapart needs more like this.
Hangon: I tend to disagree. Large images are only one possible application of using a technique like this. I’ve done something similar on a site I’m developing for someone else ( http://www.redbear.us/rbii/ ) using a series of small images for the corner. The markup involved?
Absolutely no CSS hacks and no useless markup (for the part involving the rounded corners, that is- still need to clean up the site a bit). You simply cannot emulate a design effect like this elegantly with table hacks and 1-px images.
I have to mirror Chris Hunt’s sentiment about CSS hacks. If the only two choices I have are to use presentational markup in a design or to add a few extra rules to a style sheet, I know what choice I’m going to make.
True, I’d rather not have to resort to them, but it’s not a perfect world. I still have a much easier time developing CSS-heavy sites than I ever did with tag soup, and it usually doesn’t take that much effort to ensure that the design works fine on a broad range of browsers.
If the incentive for authors is to become famous, I’m all for it. If that’s what it takes to get cross-browser solutions that allow us other (maybe not so talented) authors to create elegant sites, I say go for it! I also have to agree with Chris Hunt’s sentiment about CSS hacks. I would rather have the hacks in the CSS than in the HTML.
If you open step 6 in IE, and size the window such that column 2 is longer than column one, you will notice that a line or two lower than column one column 2s contents kick over a few pixels. I noticed this as I was attempting to convrt a test site to a multi column floating layout. I could not find a work around for IE. This is not a problem in Mozilla.
Any suggestions would be appreciated
Hi Justin,
I’ve asked this before, look at page 3. And the answer was:
http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer/threepxtest.html
> Stick to tables for layout. M$ has kicked CSS
> to death with its refusal to support the
> standards. CSS is drowning in hackery. Worse
> still, there seems to be a culture of hack
> fame developing around CSS whereby an
> individual has his name carved into the
> history of CSS (Tantek etc.) by inventing a
> hack. We should be disappointed by the hacks
> we have to use to get CSS to work, not jump up
> and down with excitement.
For some reason I can’t really comprehend, this feeling you also share is gaining momentum.
I wrote something about some time ago at
http://www.aplus.co.yu/Techs/47/ but it still puzzles me when I read something like this.
Why are you really against hacks? Have troubles implementing them? Then join the club, as only a handfull of people in the world are intimate with hack implementation.
But that is not the reason to advocate against them. Aren’t 1px gif and horrible table layouts also hacks. Consider what would you have to do using tables to achieve this kind of box:
– 3 rows for header, with middle cell (in all 3 rows) being 100% width and edge cells being there just as place holders for corner gprahics
– 3 rows in the middle, 2 edges and content of the box
– 3 rows at the bottom, just to close up the rounded box
9-cell table with just 2 cells containing actual content? How is that different – it is a hack of different sort, but the one we are all used to. And you download all that markup each time – compared to the fact that CSS is cached.
Personally, I would use rounded corners described in the articles only if client INSISTED to have ROUNDED columns in FLUID layout.
In all other cases this markup can be much simpler (when you have fixed width box, which usually happens).
Nevertheless, I welcome this article, as it saves me the time of developing the same thing when I encounter such spec.
> Consider what would you have
> to do using tables to achieve
> this kind of box:
Using the method in the article, the background images have to be as big as the content. Try adding some more paragraphs to the 6th example, and the design runs out of background image.
At least the table method you quoted works, and works everywhere.
In developing CSS solutions, some people appear to have forgotten this. If you are going to give someone code which they can copy paste, they are going to expect it to work consistently. This method fails that test.(make the browser window too large in demo 6 for example.)
The simple fact is that if you want a fully fluid box with rounded corners and side borders, you *have* to use 9 images. (4 corners, 4 sides, 1 in the centre for colour safety)
This method only has 5 images. Oops.
As IE/Win does not support content: url(), this means that all the images must be put in as backgrounds, which means we need 9 tags to style, or 9 “hooks”. That’s 9 divs inside each other, or a set of divs above the content in the box, and a set after.
For the first method, see:
http://www.fczbkk.com/css/ramceky.html
For the second method, see:
http://www.redmelon.net/tstme/4corners/
(You’ll have to view source on both examples, as both are demonstrations only)
Douglas
I don’t know how much of a difference it will make, but I do know that mozilla’s rendering engine (gecko) prefers tiling 32px images over 1px images. At least, that’s what the mozilla skin optimization guide says. The right side image would therefore work better in mozilla if it were 32px high.
Not because of the way it looks nor the glitches that occur because of the size of the images.
Everyone is raving about how important is to avoid extraneous html tags and “semantically logical markup”. What about semantically logical css? In this example the h1 for the article header gets the image for the top-right corner as its background. The ArticleFooter gets the bottom right image. What happens when we come across an article that has no footer? The problem is not this article’s, but rather with the stage css is at this point.
Instead of setting different styles to different parts of the layout to come with the correct appearance (something like 9 nested div’s each having a different border, as someone suggested), css should allow a sigle element to have several backgrounds, or allow margins to be specified with images and not only width, color, etc.
So instead of the many styles needed for the look the author wants to show, we would need only similar to the following:
div.Article {
background:
white url(image/back.gif) repeat,
top left url(image/leftedge.gif) repeat-y,
top left url(image/topedge.gif) repeat-x,
top right url(image/rightedge.gif) repeat-y,
bottom left url(image/bottomedge.gif) repeat-x,
top left url(image/topleftcorner.gif) no-repeat,
top right url(image/toprightcorner.gif) no-repeat,
bottom left url(image/bottomleftcorner.gif) no-repeat,
bottom right url(image/bottomrightcorner.gif) no.repeat
}
so a
This sure seems like a lot of complicated stuff which is prone to error. Why not be patient and wait for CSS-3 where this enhanced functionality is better defined?
because we’re not patient. that’s the point 😉
>> What about semantically logical css?
I’ve wondered about that as well. Ultimatly the whole of semantic markup is to help computers parse the contents for information. Since the css is purely stylistic, there’s not much of a point in making it semantic.
>> css should allow a sigle element to have several backgrounds
I agree. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-css3-content-20030514/#wrapping
Looks great on IE, but not on Safari. It might be worth playing around with some more, for cross-platform functionality.
3 years of table hacking is enough for me. I spent over a thousand days nesting tables and futsing with borders and spacer.gifs and more nesting and nowrap and all that other table crap.
Now we use all CSS for our layouts. Days of work have turned to hours, which gives us time to focus on better logic and actually implementing features instead of screwing with tables.
Yes I’d trade CSS hacks for table hacks any day. Much less of a pain in my rear.
Not only do rounded boxes serve no functional purpose, but they are about as ‘in’ as acid-washed blue jeans.
While the method itself is brilliant One of the the biggest benefits of the entire standards-compliant, css evolution—is the aesthetic it fosters. Boxy is where it’s at right now. Sharp, clean, minimal, elegant.
The American Arts and Crafts Movement of the mid 1800’s encouraged “honesty” in construction and finishing, calling for solid wood and rectangular joinery. The De Stijl Movement of the early 1900’s, was obsessed with pure colors, forms, and right-angle geometry. Elementary, economic, functional and un-monumental forms were essential.
Limited browser support was the best thing that ever happened to web design. It forced us to simplify.
Leave the rounded corners to the slice-and-dice table hackers of 1999 and embrace the zeitgeist, baby.
> Not only do rounded boxes serve no functional
> purpose, but they are about as ‘in’ as
> acid-washed blue jeans.
Hehe 🙂
Using “rounded corners” as an example in the article, served the purpose well – to demonstrate what the technique “does”. But please note that the headline of the article is “Custom corners & Borders”, which means that nothing has to be “round”; it can be anything you want it to be.
“Limited browser support was the best thing that ever happened to web design. It forced us to simplify.”
If anything limited support caused more problems. People wanted MORE MORE MORE. And when MS attempted to give them all the bells and whistles while the standards bodies tried to put something more realistic together and NS sat on it’s hands. That’s why we have these hacks today is because one group had a vision of the web that was entirely contrary to how people really wanted to use it – aesthetics, art history, and good design principles aside.
FWIW…Not quite as slick looking in IE 6. Some of the elements slide around a bit.
I like this, but what if you are using a style for media=”print”? won’t the borders you add in media=”all” then show up in your print style sheet?
i suppose you could specify no borders/backgrounds in your print style sheet.
oops, i answered my own question. but i’ll post it anyhow in case anybody else has the same one.
Thanks for the great trick.
I worked with Ryan Thrash over a month ago
on this method, and we discovered that Gecko
often mars the corners effect under certain
text/height conditions. It’s due to the “1px
rounding error” that happens often in Gecko
browsers.
http://www.positioniseverything.net/round-error.html
http://www.positioniseverything.net/gecko/mozshift.html
I’d be very suprised if this problem has been
negated here. It’s quite persistent. Ryan was unable to solve it, which didn’t suprise me.
The Tanket Hack hide the Css to NS4, also if you import it with
Trying to line up the elements in a pixel perfect arrangement, would make the bug you mention, cause problems in Gecko based browsers.
My solution was to make sure that the elements overlap with at least 1 px – and that seems to have “solved” it.
I have to agree that I find the table solution to this problem simple and elegant. Moreover, I find the table solution perfectly logical and self-explanatory.
Please, realize I am not trying to discount the CSS approach. There seems to be a push toward a logical usage of html tags such that table tags, for example, are only used to present tables of data. I cannot totally agree with this. I think a table is a logical solution to this problem. I know logically that the entire structure (border+content) must be presented as an invisible grid. In my mind, grid=table. Logically. When I see “div” I think of an amorphous division. This may be arguing semantics, but lets face it, div-table arguement at its root is largely semantic. Sure, sure. Screen readers, lynx, etc. Don’t forget, using tables doesn’t rule out CSS. You can always assign a class to the table tag, and there’s your easy CSS updating.
Great article, but I really can do this in seconds flat with tables, whereas I would have to fiddle with divs for hours to ensure the positioning is correct across various browsers.
Great, works really well, but shouldn’t this be do-able without having to put empty article footer
s everywhere, just so they can serve as hooks on which to hang the bottom images of the box? My boxes/menus etc would not have author information at the bottom, so these tags are empty and only there for markup purposes. Aren’t we sposed to be getting away from that? Excellent stuff tho, I’m just being picky.
I had no time to read all of the previous entries so i’ll just ask:
can you make a css box that has corners that look like this? —-> / and that would make the square box look more like an octagon (kinda like this –> /¯)
I’m going to have to concur that CSS, in its current phase, just isn’t up to the task when it concerns constructing interfaces laid out in graphical frames. Soren’s article, while creative, only reinforces the fact that CSS was developed by purists and not by designers (perhaps to keep people from mucking up logical structure rather than as an aid for designers). When you have to use placeholder paragraph and header tags just to position pieces of images; and some of the physical image sizes actually consume three times the bandwidth than a whole table solution, you know that there’s a problem. Throw in the monkey wrench that was so generously provided by Microsoft’s IE, and it seems self-defeating to utilize CSS if you require image based flexible layouts. We are all effectively applying the same workaround mentality with CSS that we have been using for HTML and this, of all things, was what CSS was suppose to have addressed.
Until we are able to use multiple background images in a single div tag, rounded frames will continue to be a nuisance on pure CSS layouts. For the time being, the safest bet is to stick with tables in tandem with CSS for sites where puzzle-piecing image slices are required.
Almost every designer seems to be kind of upset with Microsoft Internet Explorer because, although used by 94% of Internet users(could we call it the “majority”?), does not parse the CSS as dictated by whoever decide that CSS should make 94% comply with what the other 6% say is acceptable. I fail to see the logic of creating a standard which goes against the trend of the users. When I code a page I want the end-user to see my product and I little care about the Mozilla vs.Explorer with Opera as a referee! Could the W3C take into account the facts of life?
What facts of life are those? Microsoft does not own the universe, and just because the current MS browser does not quite support standards they had as much of a chance as anyone else to put input into does not mean those standards are wrong, only that they are not currently supported by a browser that is used by a great many people, and is essentially only avalible for one operating system.
Bugs are a fact of life in any code, but especially in anything as complex as IE. I may be wrong but I can’t think of anything recent and CSS-based where MS’s reaction was “go away — our way is better.”
“The facts of life” are unless you never want the feature set of any browser to change at all, there will always be bugs in the browsers and they will not be consistant from one browser to another, and of course not one browser version to another.
I do not remember saying that Microsoft own anything. The question I am asking is why ignore the majority of users when standards are made. And by the way MS reaction is exactly what Netscape used to have when they were the 300 pound “Godzilla” in the world of browsers. I only want to go about my coding business and be as efficient as possible and be able to have a page that renders with any browser without being plain vanilla text. I was so happy when I first heard about CSS and I dreamed that it would work with any browser. CSS 3 is on the horizon and my dream is still a dream. Yes, bug are a fact of life. So what? We try to feed them rather then debugging?
if it only worked correctly on IE6!!!
You guys are wasting a lot of time on this, as I did. I spent several days trying to get this to work on IE6, but no dice.
I have concluded that since it doesn’t work correctly on IE6, it’s pretty much useless.
Nice idea, though.
Thanks, this article was very helpful for me. I have always hated rounded corners but now I will only do round stuff 😉
I had suggested the “Sliding Doors” tutorials to friend because they were mega-helpful.. and she forward this little guy to me.. thanks!
These things seem to be gems, every single one of them. The more I get into CSS (thanks to alistapart.com and sitepoint.com) the more upset I am with MSIE not being up to CSS standards.
This technique works great for me.
But one thing I can’t get to work — and I’m surprised no one mentioned it — is that if you try to put a right-aligned image in the body of the box, the box doesn’t grow vertically to accomidate the full size of the image.
Any ideas how to fix this?
-Hank
I’m VERY new to CSS, 4 days, in fact.
I’ve learned more on this site than any other about HTML, CSS and Webdesign. I find the writing to be intelligent, informative and even a wee bit creative betimes.
I will attempt to employ some of these techniques in me own pages, which shall remain unidentified for now. (I’ve only 15 days of HTML thus far.)
Five stars, Angus!!
Happy Dae
Very nice, however I’ve run into a nice problem, which a few other people seem to be having. The nice I don’t have a footer everywhere so why just fill up space with the footer….
http://rag.nu/New%20Folder/New%20Folder/test.html
Looks good but for the huge space where $foot is… oh, and who said this was purely for rounded corners.
Add me to the ALA’s Admirers group!
great articles, even greater suggestions and ‘idea-generator’…
My issue with the rounded corners stuff as presented here is that I either have to provide HUGE images to cover every possible window-size, or that I am forced to limit the box to a specific maximum height/width.
Too bad you don’t make use of the browsers abilities to actually repeat backgnd images.
Right now, I am tryin’ to get a fully fluid, indefinitely resizable rounded-corner-box (with 9 Backgnd images — which could be reduced to 3: the combined corners, top- and bottom edges, the right and left edges), and there seems to be quite some differences between MS and the rest of the world. (On my side, everything works flawless unless I touch the MS-Universe).
But then, I even have difficulties to find myself a box of there to do the checklist.
Once the cross-platform -Browser compatibility issues will be solved (if this is possible at all), I consider to create some script (thru innerhtml or somesuch) that will generate the extra html needed to render the boxes edges and corners, so that all I’ll have to throw into the page is the actual content, like,
any help or hints/pointers are welcome, of course!
best
david. )
Is anyone else getting a problem where andy imiges held inside the Articlebody box is not being displayed, is there a solution?
I have tried your method using only 3 images for the boxes. Two of the boxes are also using an image replacement technique. I am also limited to using standard (for our company) classes and minimal ids. I got everything working finally in Safari, Mozilla, ie5.2 mac and ie5.5 pc, except… once I adjusted for the pc, the content in two of my boxes become overlapped or disappear! Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
For those with high resolutions or designs simply wanting to keep image size down, what would you recommend doing about the possible and eventual break between the left and right corners?
I had applied this article to create a web page, all work ok but in Internet Explorer the right border doesn’t show well, not appear as a continuous line.
There are any method to solve this?
Can view the problem on mi web:
http://philips530.webcindario.com
I wasn’t able to get the borders to work. The top left and bottom left over-lapped the right side. The footer “p” extended too far to the left out of the boxed area. How can I make this work and how can I make my own gif designs?