SV: Re: Javascript + CSS + IE
"Kenneth Chr. Nilsen" <[email protected]> Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:04:24 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.dom.wdf |
|---|---|
| Organization | Optisoft |
| Message-ID | <000501c70838$d8751110$0a01a8c0@winhell> |
Hi Adam, you probably already now, but you could replace the usual width and heights in tables and cells with the style attribute: table style="width: 200px;height: 500px;padding:2px;" ... etc. Same goes for TDs and TRs. mvh / regards, Kenneth Chr. Nilsen <http://optisoft.no/> Optisoft http://optisoft.no <http://optisoft.no/> -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] På vegne av Adam Griffis Sendt: 14. november 2006 19:27 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: [wdf-dom] Re: Javascript + CSS + IE Thank you John and Ryan for your responses. I am playing around with some of the things you suggested, and I will let you know how it turns out. Some comments right now: Ryan: I have played with the position: relative thing in the past, knowing that it causes many issues *not* having it (in IE). In the past it made no difference - maybe I just didn't go up enough levels with it. I will continue to look into it. For now I have changed the doctype from HTML 4.01 to XHTML 1.0. It did indeed solve the problem of the scrollbar jumping in and out - but it caused a bunch of other ones in the process. I'm trying to rework the page so that 1) I can elimnate the table layout (XHTML doesn't like height / width stuff on tables), and 2) I can fix the problems that appeared by changing the doctype. John: The XHTML namespace in the HTML tag - I'm not completely sure where that came from. I wasn't really intending for it to force the page into strict mode. Thanks for the input that it may be worse in strict mode - I will continue looking into this. Could you explain a bit more about selectstart? I have never used that in an event handler so I'm a bit confused about what it's supposed to do. I'm not even sure what the default selection behavior is that you're talking about! Please forgive my ignorance. Thanks again guys - I'll let you know if I make any progress, and as always, I would appreciate any more input anyone may have! Adam > Hey Adam, > > Ryan may be right about the relative positioning. I don't know > exactly why, but it seems that IE more correctly honors its box model > when it is using relative or absolute positioning. This trick has > worked for me several times in the past for similar misbehaving with > both IE6 and IE7. > > Make sure that all of the parent nodes are also in one of these > positioning settings, too. Well, try the direct parent first. I > can't remember if I needed to go beyond that. > > If I remember correctly, though, this problem is worse when using one > of the strict modes. I see an XHTML namespace in the HTML tag, but I > am not sure if this is enough to trigger IE to enter "Standards Mode". > > Don't get me wrong on this: standards mode is the way to go for > cross-browser development. It at least gets rid of many quirks you > would otherwise have to handle. This just happens to be one of the > few unfortunate side-effects from putting IE in strict mode. > > Also, to get rid of IE's default selection behavior when dragging the > widgetHandle element, be sure to have the document's "selectstart" > event return false (well, "onselectstart" in IE). > > Regards, > > -- John > > http://e-numera. <http://e-numera.com/> com/ > http://ajax- <http://ajax-web2.com/> web2.com/ > > > --- In wdf-dom@yahoogroups <mailto:wdf-dom%40yahoogroups.com> .com, "Ryan Hicks" <ryan.c.hicks@...> wrote: >> >> I've only just looked at your sample, but I have two thoughts based > on your >> description: >> >> >> >> 1) The box model for IE and Gecko are significantly different. If > you put >> IE into standards-compliant mode, it will behave a bit better. Try > putting >> a doctype like: "<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 >> Transitional//EN" >> "http://www.w3. <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd> org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">" or > similar at >> the beginning of your document. If that fails to address the > problem, then >> it still may be an issue with the box model, in which case all you > can do is >> monkey with the CSS until you find something that works. >> >> >> >> 2) Try putting position: relative on some of the elements. If your > design >> allows for that to be okay, it may help IE's rendering engine know > what to >> do with the elements. >> >> >> >> -ryan >> >> >> >> _____ >> >> From: wdf-dom@yahoogroups <mailto:wdf-dom%40yahoogroups.com> .com [mailto:wdf-dom@yahoogroups <mailto:wdf-dom%40yahoogroups.com> .com] On > Behalf Of >> Adam Griffis >> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 4:29 AM >> To: wdf-dom@yahoogroups <mailto:wdf-dom%40yahoogroups.com> .com >> Subject: [wdf-dom] Javascript + CSS + IE >> >> >> >> Hello All, >> >> I have run into a JS / CSS layout issue in IE, and I can't for the > life of >> me figure out what's going on. Basically, I have one DIV that is > expanding >> beyond the bounds of the containing DIV, and I've literally spent hours >> trying to find the problem. It appears to be somehow tied to the >> scrollbars, but again, I'm not sure. >> >> The container is resizable height-wise by grabbing the bottom of the >> container, and the left and right columns within the container are >> resizable by grabbing the divider between them. If you play around with >> resizing it in various ways, the problem described above will come > and go. >> >> I have pulled a portion of the site and simplified it to show only the >> problem, as I knew there would be no way to describe it... >> >> http://www.griffisw <http://www.griffisw <http://www.griffisweb.com/resize> eb.com/resize> eb.com/resize >> >> Of course, it works just fine in Firefox. I was hoping the problem would >> disappear with IE7, but no such luck. >> >> ANY help would be greatly appreciated, and I figure this is one of the >> better places to ask. >> >> Thanks, everyone! >> Adam Griffis >> >> >> >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]