/*
   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;
}



:root code {
	font-size: 120%;	

  /* monospace fonts are typically smaller that 
     normal' fonts under Mozilla. */
}

div.themepage table { 
  width: auto;
  min-width: 500px;
}