Sent by Zoe M. Gillenwater on 5 November 2004 13:01
Alex Robinson wrote:
>> Some designers will substitute an actual width for min-width. Ie
>> will obey the >actual width. Yet, that puts a dampler on flexibility.
>
>
>
> Alternatively:
>
> ...
> <td>
> <div class="stretcher">Test</div>
> </td>
> ...
>
> .stretcher { min-width: 500px; }
> // feed IEs an actual width, but exclude IE-Mac 5
> * html .stretcher { /*\*/ width: 500px /* */ }
>
>
> That way you do get the benefits of min-width combined with IE's bug
> rides in to rescue a deficiency cack-handedness and no need for
> semantic impurities. Honestly in the long run, if you can avoid
> littering your code with meaningless empties you'll be thankful.
While this may be an acceptably graceful degradation for IE, I think
it's important to point out that this hack does *not* emulate min-width
in IE. What min-width: 500px ought to do is expand the div to 100% of
its parent element, unless it is narrowed to the point where it should
be under 500px, at which point it freezes at 500px. Setting a width of
500px in IE means that the div is always 500px unless content pushes it
out wider, but it never expands to 100% and bases its width off the
parent as it should. So there's a significant difference between the
two behaviors.
Again, just pointing this out for the benefit of the list.
Zoe
--
Zoe M. Gillenwater
Design Specialist
Highway Safety Research Center
http://www.hsrc.unc.edu
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
