Sent by Andrew Clover on 24 June 2002 08:08
Joe Howley [EMAIL-REMOVED]> wrote:
> Like, floated block-level A's work without a specified width.
You're thinking of replaced elements like <img>. Floated <a>s require a
width; also, all <a>s with 'display: block' (which is implied by 'float')
should have a width set anyway to avoid bugs in IE5.0/Win. (Most notably,
you can only click on the text of a block <a> without a width there, but
in fact the brokenness goes much further than that and can bite you in
unexpected ways.)
> Weeell, tables have a tendency to be very insistent about their width,
> so it might be easier to leave it unsized...
CSS2 says a table may behave like a block-level or replaced inline-level
element, but the 'replaced inline-level' behaviour only happens when you
specify 'display: inline-table', which isn't well-supported. So a floated
table is a non-replaced element and therefore needs a width.
You can probably get away without including it in current browsers because
(a) their implementation of CSS table width and float is often tied to the
historical implementation of HTML <table width> and <table align>, which
work a little differently, and (b) even in the spec, the 'width' property
on tables behaves differently to normal block-level elements.
--
Andrew Clover
[EMAIL-REMOVED]
http://and.doxdesk.com/
