Prior to IE6, the boxmodel of IE was build upon the idea
margin+padding+border were included in the width. You are able to change
boxmodel rendering using the appropriate css rules, (mostly you just
need border or padding box).
The box model can be workaround by not using width/height in
IE incorrectly implements the CSS box model, while FF (and other
browsers) gets it right. Specifically, IE assumes the width you
specify is for the actual content area of the elements box, while the
CSS spec says that the width you specify is for the entire box
(including padding, border,
Michael the Tantek hack is one of the most ugliest hacks available for
many reasons (for ex. future use of working selectors) :) People think
the standard doctype is the best decision, working with standards,
giving them the idea of being innovative and future driven.. you are
being fooled by IE.
If you force IE 6 into quirks mode, you still have to hack the box
model--in quirks mode you'll just be lumping IE 6 in with the hack. The
simple method of doing this is:
Quirks mode allows developers to maintain backwards compatibility and avoid
all those really ugly hacks you included in
Prior to IE6, the boxmodel of IE was build upon the idea
margin+padding+border were included in the width.
Are you sure? I believe it included padding and border but not margin, but I
haven't actually tested to verify this. Again, I'm basing my information off
of the following page:
Micha Schopman wrote:
This model however can be suppressed by forcing IE into quirks. I would
recommend it to everyone, since standards mode is to buggy for
production.
I can't agree with the force IE into quirks suggestion. Working around
the box model is just to easy to justify making IE
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 10:47 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT moving to FireFox
Ben Rogers wrote:
Quirks mode allows developers to maintain backwards compatibility
and avoid
all those really ugly hacks you included in your message. The problem
with
the hacks
Nope you are right .. I had to learn using quirks mode the hard way.
During the creation of hundreds of css layouts we quickly figured out IE
truly sucked when not in quirks mode.
The bugs, were related to relative, absolute positioning, margins,
paddings, canvas measurements, and oh much more.
Ben Rogers wrote:
Quirks mode also prevents developers from utilizing the standards
advances and CSS support in IE 6.
It might be a little limiting, but backwards compatibility always is.
In this case, through the use of either hacks or conditional comments,
it doesn't have to be as
In this case, through the use of either hacks or conditional comments,
it doesn't have to be as limiting. Your argument supports simplifying
backwards compatibility, not simply supporting it. Conditional comments
alone, provides full support for backwards compatibility in IE to the
point that
Yep.. everything you added, was seen as a thief of the final width.
Micha Schopman
Software Engineer
Modern Media, Databankweg 12 M, 3821 AL Amersfoort
Tel 033-4535377, Fax 033-4535388
KvK Amersfoort 39081679, Rabo 39.48.05.380
Message-
From: Victor Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 9:04 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT moving to FireFox
Interesting. So how are people coding for this? Determine
the browser and then have two dimensions?
I was wondering if M$ is doing
This is one of the most made failures when people try to learn tabeless
layouting. That mode alistapart uses is only sufficient for simple
layouts. Quirk mode is the safest mode you can use. There is no reason
to use XHTML strict or transitional doctypes with IE, because XHTML
isn't even supported
Ben Rogers wrote:
Quirks mode allows developers to maintain backwards compatibility and avoid
all those really ugly hacks you included in your message. The problem with
the hacks is that they all rely on implementation bugs. If this were object
oriented programming, the phrase would be
Quirks mode also prevents developers from utilizing the standards
advances and CSS support in IE 6.
It might be a little limiting, but backwards compatibility always is.
In addition, it only allows backwards
compatibility in IE, which says nothing of more modern browsers like
Mozilla and
Kevin,
Thanks. Very interesting.
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 9:26 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SOT moving to FireFox
The simplest way is to simply declare a proper doctype which switches IE to
using the W3C box
Yeah, you're right, I did have it backwards. Apologies for that.
Sunday night and my brain wasn't working on all cylinders.
cheers,
barneyb
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:31:35 -0500, Ben Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IE incorrectly implements the CSS box model, while FF (and other
browsers)
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT moving to FireFox
IE incorrectly implements the CSS box model, while FF (and other
browsers) gets it right. Specifically, IE assumes the width you specify is
for the actual content area of the elements box, while the CSS spec says
that the width you specify
Thank you all,
very informative and usefull information.
The good thing is that after I implemented the changes mentioned by
Isaac, the application now almost functions in FF. There are som css
and GUI issues that I hope I will be able to fix using the info from
this thread.
Thanks,
Victor
There are a few DHTML widgets and they are not working
properly in FF.
For example the following is some of the code behind one
DHTML widget:
document.onmouseover = ItemOver;
var eOld = null;
function ItemOver()
{
var eSrc = window.event.srcElement;
if (eSrc != null eSrc.className
Thanks Isaac,
I have implemented the second part and it's working fine.
I am working now on the first one. There is actually one function for
all the events:
document.onmouseout = ItemOut;
document.onmousedown = ItemDown;
document.onmouseup = ItemUp;
Thanks again.
Victor
PS One more thing:
Interesting. So how are people coding for this? Determine the browser
and then have two dimensions?
I was wondering if M$ is doing this on purpose or just doesn't care.
Thanks Barney
Victor
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:46:13 -0800, Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IE incorrectly
-Original Message-
From: Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 10:34 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SOT moving to FireFox
I was wondering if M$ is doing this on purpose or just doesn't care.
I doubt they are doing it on purpose. I think it's just they just
Take a look at the post on leftjustified.net on the topic where they
tear down the box model and start from scratch universally:
http://leftjustified.net/journal/2004/10/19/global-ws-reset/
Adam Howitt
http://www.webdevref.com
Rob wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 22:04:20 -0500, Victor Moore
IE incorrectly implements the CSS box model, while FF (and other
browsers) gets it right. Specifically, IE assumes the width you
specify is for the actual content area of the elements box, while the
CSS spec says that the width you specify is for the entire box
(including padding, border, and
There are a few CSS parsing bugs that are unique to IE as well. You
can use those to easily specify both dimensions. For example, IE will
transparently ignore // comment in stylesheets, while Mozilla
correctly recognizes the invalid syntax and ignores through the end of
the rule. That lets you
After sending this I realized I was AMAZINGLY unclear on the first
paragraph. What I should have said was something like this :
IE has some parsing bugs that can make this easier. For example, if
you use a // for a one-line comment (a syntax that CSS does NOT
support), IE will read the slashes,
27 matches
Mail list logo
