Re: [OT] Difference in IE and Moz rendering of select lists

Jasen Betts said the following on 1/14/2006 1:30 AM:

comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets added to cross-post.

On 2006-01-13, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtHome (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote:

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.


the dropdown is mmade of <options

<sarcasm>Really? I didn't know that</sarcasm>

it may hase be that firefox just has a
different policy for the width of the options and how to handle overflow...

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. 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.

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.

set an explicit width for option,
and also overflow: hidden ; padding-right:20px

Did you test that before you posted it? It doesn't change the behavior.

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:


??? you could just use CSS to set the minimum width.....


That still is not an "IE Bug" but rather a "Firefox Bug".


it mak be able to fix the IE behavior using CSS
(possibly "option {overflow:visible;})

Nope.

I can't be bothered to try.

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.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.javascript.]
On 2006-01-14, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtHome (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote:

Jasen Betts said the following on 1/14/2006 1:30 AM:

comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets added to cross-post.

On 2006-01-13, Randy Webb <HikksNotAtHome (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote:

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.


the dropdown is mmade of <options

sarcasm>Really? I didn't know that</sarcasm

it may hase be that firefox just has a
different policy for the width of the options and how to handle overflow...

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

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)

. 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.

IE's css support is rather rudimetary...

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.

not even that.

set an explicit width for option,
and also overflow: hidden ; padding-right:20px

Did you test that before you posted it? It doesn't change the behavior.

yes, I was talking about how to get mozilla to mimic my understanding of the
recieved description of IE's behavior.

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:


??? you could just use CSS to set the minimum width.....


That still is not an "IE Bug" but rather a "Firefox Bug".


it mak be able to fix the IE behavior using CSS
(possibly "option {overflow:visible;})

Nope.

I can't be bothered to try.

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.

but you didn't have to install a computer to test it in IE.

Bye.
Jasen