1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
in smaller windows, it reflows thus:
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10 11 12
and in larger windows:
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10
11 12
and so on.
However, the person for whom I wrote the code complains that columns
should read vertically - on paper, the list might spread over three
pages, thus:
Page 1
1 4
2 5
3 6
Page 2
7 10
8 11
9 12
Page 3
13 16
14 17
15 18
but on screen, (bearing in mind each user may have a different set of
screen size, window size, resolution and font size), we would have
Screen 1
1 10
2 11
3 12
Screen 2
4 13
5 14
6 15
Screen 3
7 16
8 17
9 18
with the user required to scroll back to the top, after item 9 - I'm
sure you'll agree that this is not desirable.
Is it possible to use CSS to present a multi- column list in the "book"
style?
--
Andy Mabbett Reply to [my first name] [at] pigsonthewing.org.uk
USA imprisons children without trial, at Guantanamo Bay:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2970279.stm>
<http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510582003?open&of=ENG-USA>
> I have a page with a list, presented, by use of CSS, sequentially,
> in this order:
Instead of lengthy explanations, why don't you post a URL?
> However, the person for whom I wrote the code complains that
> columns should read vertically
Did he say why? Sounds like a completely wrong idea in the Web context,
but maybe there's a reason I cannot see.
> Is it possible to use CSS to present a multi- column list in the
> "book" style?
No.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
It's not my site; its not been launched publicly yet, and it's not for
me to identify then discuss the (perceived) failings of the owners'
site, publicly.
>> However, the person for whom I wrote the code complains that
>> columns should read vertically
>
>Did he say why? Sounds like a completely wrong idea in the Web context,
>but maybe there's a reason I cannot see.
To mirror the arrangement of the content in print; in a style with which
the users are likely to be familiar.
>> Is it possible to use CSS to present a multi- column list in the
>> "book" style?
>
>No.
Thank you, anyway.