|
|
Posted by dorayme on 08/28/07 22:38
In article <kENAi.26917$4A1.10721@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote:
> "dorayme"
> > Last time I looked, my code exposed an odd way that IE 6
> > calculated width. In the model I posted, If you add
> >
> > table {width: 100%}
> >
> > the content clearly cannot fit and drops down in IE 6.
>
> So, why didn't you post a page where *you* had put the above width in,
> rather than one that bears no resemblance at all to your description of "all
> hell breaks loose"?
>
Because, I guess, I thought some folk would immediately recognise
the essential trouble (IE miscalculating the width and dropping
the content).
About the all hell, this I _should_ have left out, it was not
something I needed to burden others with, if the drop could be
solved, that would be good enough for me. But then, I am not as
bloody perect as you. What do *you* know about asking a question
here that avoids every possible uncharitable and graceless
condemnation.
Besides, the real page:
<http://tinyurl.com/2cbavc>
would have confused the issue and frightened folk and caused
trouble of a different kind especially with dickheads like you
who look for every possible excuse to beat innocents like me up.
Anyway, 2Dogs, what's all this to *you*?
<http://tinyurl.com/yroyj6>
> > What I want in IE is what you see in almost every modern
> > compliant browser when you add "width: 100%" to the table.
>
> No. *You* add width: 100% to the table and then *I* will look at it with IE.
No, no, this is all wrong. *You* need to take the foul mouthed
advice you gave me in a recent address. (What is it with you? Is
it those purple pants?). *You* can climb right down from that
high horse, you pretentious schmuck. You can shove your *I* up.
Want to know how? How about:
<http://tinyurl.com/2gs2cz>
?
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|