|
|
Posted by dorayme on 01/13/07 05:10
In article <3c917$45a859ea$40cba7ca$4047@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <45a83faa$0$4830$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> > "Jeff Bowman" <write.to.me@my.address.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> >> news:doraymeRidThis-1B86C7.13425813012007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> >>
> >>> Tried height: 100px; in the .border?
> >> Yep, I did. No difference.
> >
> > Well, it sure made a difference on my tests.
>
> That's because you where using a real web browser. Fire up your old
> Winbox and take a gander with IE! He has an IE-headache that
> unfortunately Excedrine won't cure ;-)
Of course, you are right. I was thinking to pull off the least
little change to his code. See if I can develop a fairy tale
model of HTML/CSS using little ditties about mums and kids and
houses and make old K cross to see how fantasy can actually work.
But not in this case! I really, really hope he does not now see
it. <g>
Much better to do without rel pos. You are the man. I'm the
martian. In fact, Jonathan, I just took a peek at Mac IE and with
the border suggestion, the red has disappeared and the white is
not where OP would like it. No need to fire the Winbox, I believe
you.
Sorry Op, look at JL's code, really.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|