Posted by rf on 08/28/07 04:37

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-D80449.13443928082007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <1617d3pdnabcdavddgon56v58c2ere7abq@4ax.com>,
> Martin Jay <martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:39:12 +1000, dorayme
>> <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >I would appreciate suggestions for having the tables at
>> >
>> >http://tinyurl.com/2mjd8m
>> >
>> >to be the same width, preferably 100%, so that hell does not
>> >break loose in IE 6 (I have no idea about IE 7?). No problem with
>> >non IE modern browsers, simply table {...; width: 100%; ...} does

>> I'm a little confused about what you want.

As am I :-)

> 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"?

> 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.
It's probably one of the many known box model bugs. Hell, it could even be
the three pixel jog.

--
Richard.

[Back to original message]