|
|
Posted by rf on 08/29/07 10:45
"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-9CCC1E.08385429082007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> 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).
Really? Well let's analyse your original post, but up front let us note that
the word dropping does not appear anywhere in your original post.
<analysis>
>I would appreciate suggestions for having the tables at
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2mjd8m
Fine. You present some tables. So far so good.
> to be the same width, preferably 100%, so that hell does not
> break loose in IE 6
Hell is breaking loose? Crikey, head for cover.
What sort of a bloody problem description is that. Imagine ringing up your
ISP and saying "Help, all hell has broken loose". They'd refer you to the
nearest exorcist.
> (I have no idea about IE 7?). No problem with
> non IE modern browsers, simply table {...; width: 100%; ...} does
> it.
Apart from being somewhat incoherent, the entire above paragraph implies
that you have actually tried width: 100% and found it to be inadequate to
your needs. You still have not actually described what the problem is, other
than the loosed hell bit.
And you post a URL to a page that *does not* have that width: 100% in there.
This implies, arrogantly IMHO, that you expect each and every one of us to
immediately drop tools to download your entire page into some local file
system, open some editor (as firebug does not work in IE6) to add the width:
100% to your, hopefully correctly, downloaded code before any of us can see
what your actual problem is, assuming that it is not simply hell breaking
loose, which may or may not be visible but is sure to be, as is this post,
firey.
> #nav {... display: inline} seems to stop the hell. So does
> conditionals that make IE override width as with:
Ah, more work for us to do. Or is it guesswork. And here is this hell bit
again. Seems to me that Mr Satan is the person you should be sniping at
here.
> table {width: 100%;} followed by
>
> /*hide from IE mac\*/
> * html table {width: 0}
> /*end hide*/
>
And more work for us?
> or even (I think?)
>
> /*hide from IE mac\*/
> * html #content {height:1%;}
> /*end hide*/
>
You think. Don't you *know*? Did you not test it?
> but this does not get the tables to be the same width in IE.
IE6 we must presume.
> The
> first conditional above that in effect tells IE not to bother
> about 100% is the one I have used elsewhere where I simply don't
> bother about cross browser looks. But this time I want to see if
> there is an easy way to have it all.
Does the above have any actual bearing on your problem? The problem you have
not identified to us as yet (except for the hell bit, that is)?
Also you are waffling.
You have a problem with IE6. Why cloud the issue with mac ignoring stuff and
conditional comments and opinions about cross browser looks. First of all,
get the thing working in IE6.
</analysis>
Later on in this thread you state "the content clearly cannot fit and drops
down in IE 6". Ah, finally a description, sort of, what the problem is.
However you still do not provide a URL to a page that actually demonstrates
the problem. You are still expecting us to do actual work to even see the
problem you are bitching about.
Now comes the rest of the thread, after I have a poke at you for not asking
your question in a mannar that might allow us to immediately see what your
problem is.
> 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.
Whatever this means I am a loss to fathom. What drop? Oh, you mean the
tables dropping down, a particular you did not even mention in your original
post, and have not yet provided an example of.
> But then, I am not as
> bloody perect as you.
Your opinion, but thank you for the complement.
> What do *you* know about asking a question
> here that avoids every possible uncharitable and graceless
> condemnation.
There are any number of pages out there that explain exactly how to ask a
question in usenet. Google for them. They are even mentioned from time to
time here and in the other groups you frequent. They will tell you what I
know about asking questions here (not that I have had the occasion to do
so): foremostly state quite clearly and exactly what is wrong. All hell
breaking loose is not an explanation of what is wrong. Never has been. Never
will.
> Besides, the real page:
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/2cbavc>
Bizzare. You must be quite cranky to have spent all that time screwing up
your page ;-)
> would have confused the issue
What issue. The only issue we have to hand from your OP is the looseness of
hell.
> and frightened folk and caused
> trouble of a different kind especially with dickheads like you
Ah, stawman argument. I was waiting for it :-)
> who look for every possible excuse to beat innocents like me up.
I'm not beating you up. I am beating up your post. I am having a polite go
at you for not correctly posing a usenet question, and also arrogantly
assuming that each and every one of us has spare time on our hands to
reproduce your problem on our own.
> Anyway, 2Dogs, what's all this to *you*?
Wife used to drink 2dogs. Started giving her headeaches. She's into
StrongBow now and they have a nice picture of an archer on the cover, rather
than a couple of, er, dogs.
It's best to look at the *entire* contents of you viewfinder, small details
can really spoil your snaps:
http://barefile.com.au/2dogs.jpg
> <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.
No, it is not. *You* have the problem. It is up to *you* to provide an
example of the problem. You should *not* expect each and every one of us to,
as I have said beforehand, download your code and amend it so as to
reproduce the problem. A problem which, we have seen, you had not even
identified to us, other than the hell stuff.
> *You* need to take the foul mouthed
And the very first time I made what I though was an amusing reply to one of
your posts, a couple of years ago during the Luigi era, I was told to "piss
off".
> advice you gave me in a recent address.
And that was in response to your unsolicited swipes at me in threads that I
had not even posted to. Even Neredbojias made note of the matter.
> (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:
More staw.
> <http://tinyurl.com/2gs2cz>
I have that picture in my library as well. Even got some girls :-)
--
Richard.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|