|
|
Posted by dorayme on 08/30/07 23:09
In article <U6cBi.27573$4A1.22011@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" <rf@invalid.com> wrote:
> "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
> >>
> >
> > Because, I guess, I thought some folk would immediately recognise
> > the essential trouble (IE miscalculating the width and dropping
> > the content).
>
> Really?
Yes really! If you were not so blinded by your ill will and need
to be narky, you would have seen this. It would not be something
everyone would have seen given that I should not have made the
hell remark. The remark came from some trouble I was having in a
more complicated application. I tried to help pinpoint the
trouble by my url without distracting folk with irrelevancies. I
carelessly forgot to remove references to the complicating
thoughts in my brain). It is quite amazing what people can see if
they lose their "attitudes". Please don't let it be true that you
cannot operate in life without your scumbag attitude, even if you
tried.
You see, the basic trouble, Richard, is that you are a bit of a
bastard. Analysis can go on for ever if you are the one making
the analysis because it latches on to your every prejudiced
interpretation... If it was not for these sad qualities, it would
have been something you would have been able to see because you
know something about these matters. But sadly, being the prick
you are, you could not. Your concentration is always on
magnifying the little things to satisfy some urge to find fault
with others. You get off on being uncharitable. Your brain gets
Attitude, much as IE gets hasLayout or whatever at various drops
of hat.
> Well let's analyse your original post,
You pretentious prick! No matter what question anyone asks, you
would always be able to bloody well "analyse" how the question
could have been better asked.
> but up front let us note that
> the word dropping does not appear anywhere in your original post.
>
How many times would you care to note this?
> <analysis>
>
I did not give anyone any work to do. If you cannot see what is
being said without having to try it, then this question is not
for you. Most of the alternatives I mentioned as routes to avoid
the IE problem were tried by me.
I was hoping that someone would recognise that IE does not
calculate widths in the same way as FF in the exact situation I
posted in the url. That the effect of adding table {width: 100%}
is to drop the table below the float (in the url given) and other
more complicated effects in other more complicated pages.
BTW, I am now warming a little bit towards Martin Jay's first
suggestion, in spite of having a way of avoiding the drop prob
with float. I should use a bit of absolute positioning more.
I had to laugh when you brought in Boji as an authority on
interpreting dorayme. Boji, for Christ's sake, is undergoing long
term therapy with me. He is a bloody patient of mine, you idiot.
Anyway, no point in chatting to a prick like you. Piss off.
Oh yeah I forgot, please don't mention Luigi again, you are not
worth even a hair of his armpit.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|