|
|
Posted by Jonathan N. Little on 04/07/07 00:13
dorayme wrote:
> Nah, no good I am afraid. Yes, it is trying, but the effect is so
> marginal as to count for a fail on this particular size
> thumbnail. (I will leave you to ponder defences for WinIE, I feel
> more merciless towards it).
Well this shows why IE is whacked:
http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/alt.html.20070406.png
alt.html.20070406.png (PNG Image, 719x442 pixels)
IE's value for bodyElement's offsetWidth *includes* the window's
scrollbar, part of the browser chrome! Whereas other browsers, here
Seamonkey, do not. So where 6 thumbs should fit IE can on fit 5, hence
the error.
Either have to fork for IE to subtract width of scrollbar width in the
calculation , not good because maybe MS will change this and also what
if you only have a handful of thumbs and no scrollbar?
Or look for another way to calculate the number of thumbs in a row...
Or, my vote, screw'em! They are using IE they deserve it! :-D
>
> Anyway, pity... The point of bothering with this sort of thing is
> to provide for the majority in this centering. I will try to
> tweak by using sizes that I often do use, namely, 200x150 for
> landscape, 150x200 for portrait... maybe IE will do better with
> different figures.
You could go with it and at least folks will decent browsers will get
the benefit. It is not like it destroys the page!
> Just one q, is IE 7 any better than 6 on this score? In other
> words, does IE 7 center the mass of thumbnails as good as in FF
> or as weakly as in IE6?
Who knows? I already have discovered IE7 has its own *unique*
bugs...eeewwoooo the MS-Zone....
I'll fool with this a bit and see if there is a workaround for IE
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|