@John_Betong,
Thanks for the response - have no clue what you are talking about?! (I think you go on the wrong train at the station!)
Let me try again…
For the template I am working on, I created two containers…
First I created a container for the Mast…
#containerMast_fixed{
position: fixed;
top: 0;
width: 100%;
box-sizing: border-box;
padding: 0 2em 1em 2em;
background-color: #FFF;
}
Then I created a container for the Body (Not the < body > body, but where the majority of a given web page’s content will go, i.e. below the Mast)…
#containerBody{
width: 100%;
box-sizing: border-box;
padding: 6em 2em 2em 2em;
}
As you can see, I made each width: 100% and I added padding to give me a gutter all the way around the web page header/content.
I like the way this looks and behaves with the fixed Mast.
Q1.) Do you SP gurus agree that this approach is acceptable, and “responsive” as well?
Since the above two container set up a basic page structure in which I can drop content, I am thinking this could be called my “page template”. Do you agree?
Next I am working on a gallery of items, and so I decided to mimic some FlexBox code that @coothead helped me out with a few weeks ago.
.flexBox{
display: flex;
flex-wrap: wrap;
justify-content: space-around;
margin: 0 auto;
}
Q2.) Is it okay to place this Flexbox inside of my #containerBody?
The purpose of this thread is that I wasn’t sure if I should convert my #containerBody{ } to a Flexbox…
It seems to me that it is better to keep #containerBody{ } as-is because…
- It provides an outer-most container for page content
- It gives me the gutter I want
- It should adapt to any screen size from desktop to moble
- It is agnostic and doesn’t user Flexbox, which may not always apply to a situation.
Q3.) Do you agree that it is best to have #containerBody{ } use Width:100% and then add a sub-container like .flexBox{ } inside of it as needed?
Attached is all of my code for this ever evolving template…
sp_gallery-02.php (9.6 KB)
Thanks for the help!