6 ms·

The auto-expanding equal height three column layout is such a standard layout on the web, and ways to do it are so often requested that it is referred to as the

The auto-expanding equal height three column layout is such a standard layout on the web, and ways to do it are so often requested that it is referred to as the "holy grail" by the CSS community. So I find your critique and accusation of trolling to be rather misplaced.

GHFigs 18y ago
I did not say it was uncommon, I said his choice was misleading. It's a trick: it allows him to demonstrate a problem with one kind of layout using floats (which by definition do not behave like tables) but then claim it is generally applicable to all layouts and CSS in general. It is not. I stand by my statement that his title is a "trollish overstatement". It was chosen for the sake of continuing argument, not reflecting the content, educating, or informing.
- chairface 18y ago
  You said it was misleading that he implied it was "typical", which is a synonym for "common". You can take issue with his conclusions, but illustrating your thesis with a common case can in no way be construed as a trick.
  - GHFigs 18y ago
    You're missing the point. Yes, it's a common case in that it occurs frequently, but it is not a typical case in that it is characteristic of the whole set. That is my problem with it, as stated for the third time. His conclusion reaches far beyond what his carefully selected evidence supports.
    - chairface 18y ago
      And for the second time, "common" and "typical" are synonyms. Furthermore, there is no one case that is "characteristic of the whole set". Apparently, in order to satisfy you, a blog post (!) must cover every type of layout. Awfully demanding, aren't you?
      - GHFigs 18y ago
        > And for the second time, "common" and "typical" are synonyms. That two words can be synonyms does not mean they have only one shared meaning. In context, a thing can sometimes be one but not the other, e.g. A dictionary is a common type of book, but it is not typical of books to consist of lists of definitions set in very small type on very thin pages. I don't understand why you're insisting on interpreting the word as "common" as I have already stated that that was not my meaning and in the context of the article (in which the author uses a single example to reflect badly on the whole) it's likely not that of the author's. > Furthermore, there is no one case that is "characteristic of the whole set". My point. I disagree with the author's attempt to depict this case as characteristic of the whole set of CSS layouts. > Apparently, in order to satisfy you, a blog post (!) must cover every type of layout. Hardly. I only wish for the author to restrict his conclusion to one that is supported by his example.

GHFigs 18y ago

I did not say it was uncommon, I said his choice was misleading. It's a trick: it allows him to demonstrate a problem with one kind of layout using floats (which by definition do not behave like tables) but then claim it is generally applicable to all layouts and CSS in general. It is not. I stand by my statement that his title is a "trollish overstatement". It was chosen for the sake of continuing argument, not reflecting the content, educating, or informing.

chairface 18y ago
You said it was misleading that he implied it was "typical", which is a synonym for "common". You can take issue with his conclusions, but illustrating your thesis with a common case can in no way be construed as a trick.
- GHFigs 18y ago
  You're missing the point. Yes, it's a common case in that it occurs frequently, but it is not a typical case in that it is characteristic of the whole set. That is my problem with it, as stated for the third time. His conclusion reaches far beyond what his carefully selected evidence supports.
  - chairface 18y ago
    And for the second time, "common" and "typical" are synonyms. Furthermore, there is no one case that is "characteristic of the whole set". Apparently, in order to satisfy you, a blog post (!) must cover every type of layout. Awfully demanding, aren't you?
    - GHFigs 18y ago
      > And for the second time, "common" and "typical" are synonyms. That two words can be synonyms does not mean they have only one shared meaning. In context, a thing can sometimes be one but not the other, e.g. A dictionary is a common type of book, but it is not typical of books to consist of lists of definitions set in very small type on very thin pages. I don't understand why you're insisting on interpreting the word as "common" as I have already stated that that was not my meaning and in the context of the article (in which the author uses a single example to reflect badly on the whole) it's likely not that of the author's. > Furthermore, there is no one case that is "characteristic of the whole set". My point. I disagree with the author's attempt to depict this case as characteristic of the whole set of CSS layouts. > Apparently, in order to satisfy you, a blog post (!) must cover every type of layout. Hardly. I only wish for the author to restrict his conclusion to one that is supported by his example.