@charset "iso-8859-1";

/*******************************************************************************
*  base.css : 2005-06-28 : Ruthsarian Layouts
* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*  base set of stylesheet rules needed to form the layout, and layout only.
*  color and fonts and such are not handled here.
*  side column widths are defined in EMs. see base_pixels.css for a pixel
*  version instead.
*******************************************************************************/

#pageWrapper
{
	margin: 0;
	width: auto;
	min-width: 500px;
}
#outerColumnContainer
{
	z-index: 1;
	border-color: #fff;	/* set default color to white. set the real
				   color inside colors.css */
	border-style: solid;
	border-width: 0 15em;	/* sets the width of the borders used to create
				   the left and right columns' background 
				   color. */
}
#innerColumnContainer
{
	z-index: 2;
	width: 100%;
}
* html #innerColumnContainer
{
	position: relative;	/* fix a render bug in IE under certain
				   conditions */
}
#contentColumn
{
	margin: 0 -1px;		/* without this, boxes stop floating next to 
				   each other */
	width: 100%;
}
#leftColumn, #rightColumn, #contentColumn
{
	float: left;
	position: relative;	/* IE has a display/render bug with non-floated 
				   block elements inside floated block elements. 
				   setting position:relative on the floating
				   element seems to resolve this. */
	z-index: 10;
	overflow: visible;	/* fix for IE italics bug */
}
#rightColumn
{
	float: right;		/* floating this right allows for the right
				   column block to appear before the content
				   column in the flow of the document. doing
				   this allows for any easy 3 column layout
				   in NN4.

				   There is certainly a lot, in terms of layout
				   'theory' about how the flow of the document
				   should be. I won't get into it here. */
	width: 15em;
	margin: 0 -15em 0 1px;	/* same as in the #leftColumn selector up 
				   above. */
}
#leftColumn
{
	width: 15em;
	margin: 0 1px 0 -15em;	/* like in the #contentColumn selector, without
				   the 1px margin on the opposite side of the 
				   box, boxes stop floating next to each 
				   other */
}
#footer
{
	position: relative;
}
#masthead h1
{
	display: inline;	/* personal preference to keep the header 
				   inline. you could just as easily change 
				   padding and margins to 0. */
}
.clear
{
	clear: both;
	padding-bottom: 1px;	/* for Gecko-based browsers */
	margin-bottom: -1px;	/* for Gecko-based browsers */
}
.hide, #oldBrowserNotice, .ieSixCharDupBug
{
	/* hide elements that CSS-targeted browsers shouldn't show */
	display: none !important;
}
#contentColumn
{
	border-width: 0;	/* reset value from that in the version 4 
				   stylesheet. this isn't in borders.css because
				   were you to create a print.css and not 
				   include borders.css, then the v4 border would
				   still remain when you print. */
}
/*
	The below block of CSS is invalid, and will invalidate this stylesheet.
	So it is up to you to decide how you want to handle this. The below CSS
	is a fix for IE/Win to help it better handle text that is wider than 
	the available area. It does not handle this as expected, and forces the
	floated elements to start stacking. This is a very undesirable thing.
	Until a CSS-compliant way is devised, this CSS block will have to do.

	So, do you live with invalid CSS? This comes down to a sort of markup
	morals issue. Some people live and die by w3 validation. If it isn't
	valid, it isn't good. Others don't validate at all, rather focusing
	on "real-world" results.

	I think the answer might be somewhere in the middle, but perhaps 
	leaning torwards w3 validation. It's good to work torwards validation.
	Indeed, I think documents should be able to validate against a w3
	or other validator. However there are times where you will find reason
	to explicitly defy the specs and include invalid markup or CSS.

	It is already done once in the markup of this layout, using the name
	attribute of an anchor tag. That attribute is deprecated in XHTML 1
	but without it, backwards compatibility at even the most base level
	is destroyed. So I purposely break the spec in order to provide that
	backwards compatibility. Remove the one line, and it validates fine.

	I am willing to break the markup when I have a good reason. And I think
	this is the same type of situation. IE breaks horribly without this 
	fix. I am willing to include this invalid line of CSS in order to 
	keep IE happy. Using the * html selector, I know that CSS-compliant
	browsers (the ones where validation matters) won't apply this CSS block.
	Pretty much ONLY IE will apply this CSS. I have a reason to break the
	CSS, I am fairly certain of its effect on other browsers (none), and
	so I include it here.

	I could have used the conditional comments that IE supports in it's
	proprietary side of HTML. However that requires _every_ document to
	contain the extra lines necessary to do this. This removes any
	central point of control over at least some of the CSS being
	applied.

	In a template(d) environment, perhaps I would take that alternate route.
	But here, where I'm not in a template(d) environment, I choose to add
	this directly into the CSS.
*/
* html #pageWrapper
{
	word-wrap: break-word;
}

/******************************************************************************/