["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.javascript.]
On 2006-01-14, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtHome@aol.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> Jasen Betts said the following on 1/14/2006 1:30 AM:
>
> comp.infosystems.
www.authoring.stylesheets added to cross-post.
>[color=green]
>> On 2006-01-13, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtHome@aol.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>sean said the following on 1/13/2006 1:44 AM:
>>>
>>>Please do not top-post in comp.lang.javascript
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thanks for the info. But in FireFox the dropdown menu part will
>>>>automatically extend to fit the width of the long text without change the
>>>>width of the combobox part.
>>>
>>>Then I would consider that a bug in FireFox's CSS Support if it is not
>>>honoring your CSS Definition to set it at a particular width.[/color]
>>
>>
>> the dropdown is mmade of <options>[/color]
>
><sarcasm>Really? I didn't know that</sarcasm>
>[color=green]
>> it may hase be that firefox just has a
>> different policy for the width of the options and how to handle overflow...[/color]
>
> That may be and having a "different policy" doesn't make it a bug in IE
> unless there is something in a specification somewhere that says it
> should do something different.
>
> And after re-reading the posts in this thread what I thought the OP was
> referring to was not what I thought it was.
>
> comp.infosystems.
www.authoring.stylesheets was added in the hopes
> someone there can clarify which is right and which is wrong (if either
> is wrong)
>
><select style="width:3em">
><option>Option 1 with lots of content</option>
><option>Option 2 with lots of content</option>
><option>Option 3 with lots of content</option>
><option>Option 4 with lots of content</option>
><option>Option 5 with lots of content</option>
></select>
>
> What the OP is referring to is that in IE all you will see is a list
> that is 3em wide. Which is what I *explicitly* told it to do[/color]
no... you told it to make the <select> in the form 3em wide
If you asked for it to be 1em high should a dropdown 1em high
appear with a scroll-bar?
the options appear above the form (as can be seen by the way they cover
other items instead of forcing them out of the way)
[color=blue]
>. In Firefox
> when you click the down arrow, you will see the entire text.
>
> Adding a width style to the option does not change that behavior in IE.[/color]
IE's css support is rather rudimetary...
[color=blue]
> The OP is claiming that as a bug in IE when its not. IE is doing
> *exactly* what you are telling it to do and nothing more.[/color]
not even that.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> set an explicit width for option,
>> and also overflow: hidden ; padding-right:20px[/color]
>
> Did you test that before you posted it? It doesn't change the behavior.[/color]
yes, I was talking about how to get mozilla to mimic my understanding of the
recieved description of IE's behavior.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>But, if you want the Select to be a certain minimum width and then to
>>>expand if need be but do not shrink below that width, then you pad one
>>>of the Select Elements:[/color]
>>
>>
>> ??? you could just use CSS to set the minimum width.....
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>That still is not an "IE Bug" but rather a "Firefox Bug".[/color]
>>
>>
>> it mak be able to fix the IE behavior using CSS
>> (possibly "option {overflow:visible;})[/color]
>
> Nope.
>[color=green]
>> I can't be bothered to try.[/color]
>
> Then why did you bother posting this nonsense in the first place? It
> took me under 30 seconds to test your proposal and it didn't change IE's
> behavior.[/color]
but you didn't have to install a computer to test it in IE.
Bye.
Jasen
