W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: OT: max-width [Was: Re: EOT/TTF : Struggle for the life ?!]

From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:22:11 +0200
Message-ID: <A027B1473A6E4644865FC33C6CEDB5B7@FREMYCOMPANY>
To: "ACJ" <ego@acjs.net>, "W3C Font WG" <www-font@w3.org>
From: "ACJ" <ego@acjs.net>
> François REMY schreef:
>>
>> And if I use width: 100% and then having padding due to another
>> style rule that I was not aware of ?
>>
>> Would I not get better result in IE 6 ? On other browsers, the padding
>> would make the page disformed, while IE 6 will do what I expected.
>> This is not because I've better result that it's the good 
>> implementation...
>>
>> And it's not because I get better result with a bad implementation that
>> no one should implement the "good" behavior.
> François,
>
> It's rather OT, but isn't that what max-width is for? It's a label that 
> describes what it does, has been around for a long time, and is -- 
> somewhat ironically -- not supported by the IE 6 you mention.

In fact :-)

But my sample don't talk about what's this problem, it talk about the
fact that even if something may look better with a bad implementation,
this is not a reason to decide to dismiss the good implementation.

Currently, you also can use -prefix-box-sizing to restore IE6's model
in modern browsers. But, as I said, this is not the question.

Regards,
Fremy 
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 10:22:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:02 GMT