- From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:22:11 +0200
- 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 UTC