On 9/28/12 11:03 AM, "Tom Livingston" wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Tom Livingston wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Gates, Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/27/12 3:53 PM, "Tom Livingston" wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Gates, Jeff wrote:
>
>
> O
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Tom Livingston wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Gates, Jeff wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/27/12 3:53 PM, "Tom Livingston" wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Gates, Jeff wrote:
On 9/27/12 3:05 PM, "Tom Livingston" wrote:
>On
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Gates, Jeff wrote:
>
>
> On 9/27/12 3:53 PM, "Tom Livingston" wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Gates, Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/27/12 3:05 PM, "Tom Livingston" wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Gates, Jeff wrote:
>
>
> O
On 9/27/12 3:53 PM, "Tom Livingston" wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Gates, Jeff wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/27/12 3:05 PM, "Tom Livingston" wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Gates, Jeff wrote:
On 9/27/12 2:45 PM, "Tom Livingston" wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 27
Well, it IE after all. :-P
On Friday, September 28, 2012, Dave Solko wrote:
> Tom,
>
> That did it. I thought I had tried a width there earlier, but evidently
> not. Everything else respects the width of the , but I guess IE just
> figures the :after isn't bound by the because, well, it's after,
