The best solution is to use a little-known display style called table-cell.
I've had to do this a few times. Here's how you do it:
/* -*- CSS -*- */
ul li .wrapper
{
display:table-cell;
width:100px; /*replace here*/
min-height:100px;/* " " */
}
ul li
{
float:left;
display:inline-block;
}
ul
{
display:table;
}
...
<!-- HTML -->
<ul>
<li><div class="wrapper">my-content</div></li>
<li><div class="wrapper">my-content</div></li>
<li><div class="wrapper">my-content</div></li>
<li><div class="wrapper">my-content</div></li>
</ul>
How this works:
When the parser sees that there's a UL object, it treats it like a table instead of a list. This gives you the distinct advantage that you're beginning to /act/ like you're working with tables (but you're not!)
The rule then runs against the wrapper class -- this creates a "Table cell". We don't want to put it in the li because OTHERWISE the li will act as the table cell. This is kinda bad. the work around is that your li is actually aligned left. There's some argument whether or not is a good idea to do it this way -- this is the "Most Effective" because it forces the box model to comply. Its fugly, I know.
the REASON its bad for the li to be treated like a table-cell is that it won't wrap. The reason it wont wrap is that table-cells aren't supposed to wrap.
There is ONE other solution that might work, however I haven't tested it.
/* -*- CSS -*- */
ul li { display: inline-block; float:left; min-height:200px;width:200px; }
Its not as ugly, but it should work by making the box model force the alignment as well.