Lisp vs. C++ (not off-topic)

[Lionello Lunesu]

"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown at simplemachines.org> wrote in message 
news:ehanlp$22jc$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> Actually, they are portable... but what you're doing is technically 
> incorrect.  I had thought it was intentional.
>
> You set a width for the box, and so the standards-compliant browsers 
> listen to you and do as you say.  You don't set overflow, so it's 
> defaulted to visible.  Thus what you see in the screenshot.
>
> Internet Explorer is completely ignoring the standards (what the CSS 
> property "width" is supposed to do) and treating it as a minimum width.
>
> Normally, you'd set min-width instead to get the effect that Internet 
> Explorer is giving you... but IE does not support min-width.  Hence 
> probably why Internet Explorer behaves this way.
>
> A lot of people use something like this for that:
>
> min-width: 600px;
> width: expression("600px"); /* This line only understood by IE. */
>
> However, Internet Explorer 7 (coming out _very_ soon, final already 
> available for download) will comply with the standards (when the document 
> has a proper DOCTYPE, which yours does) and thus the above will break it.
>
> I would suggest that it wouldn't be too bad to simply have:
>
> min-width: 600px;
>
> Because, this will mean that Internet Explorer 6 and below will simply 
> show the box at whatever width, including smaller than 600px... but every 
> other browser will work as you wish.

Wouldn't the same effect be achieved by setting "margin" instead of 
"(min-)width"?

L.