On Aug 30, 2008, at 1:24 PM, Dave Sherohman wrote: > Now for the bonus question... *Why* did that work? Was the original > problem due to requirements of the relevant spec or is it just a (IMO > bad) decision by the major browser vendors that "full width", by > default, means only the width of the viewport even if the page is > wider?
The original situation is perfectly correct and in accordance to the spec(s). You have (had) an element (<table>) that is very wide and overflows the width of the parent element. However (except in IE6) that parent element won't expand horizontally to the width of the descendant, as it is constrained by the width of the viewport. By floating the parent in your case, without assigning any width, that element is allowed to expand (that is a consequence of the 'shrink-to- fit' width computation for floated elements, except here we have an 'expand-to-fit' computation. Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
