> To look at the issue laterally, if your fixed-width table requires
> thatlong links wrap, why invoke the no-wrap rule at all? Obviously this
> snippet gives no clue as to the broader context, but what if you leave
> white-space at its default setting of normal - by omitting it?
>
The context is:
On Aug 29, 2007, at 12:43 PM, Kepler Gelotte wrote:
And if the link text were to long for the space allowed by the table
(e.g. a very very long word), the table should expand, unless the
table has 'table-layout: fixed' specified.
The table should expand even though he specified width="175"? I
> And if the link text were to long for the space allowed by the table
> (e.g. a very very long word), the table should expand, unless the
> table has 'table-layout: fixed' specified.
The table should expand even though he specified width="175"? I learn
something new every day.
Regards,
Kepl
On Aug 29, 2007, at 10:47 AM, Kepler Gelotte wrote:
I don’t think it is a bug. First of all you are not overriding the
white-space property buy assigning it to child elements or parent
elements.
You just create a conflict. Then precedence takes affect. According
to the
CSS2 spec:
'white-s
Hi,
I dont think it is a bug. First of all you are not overriding the
white-space property buy assigning it to child elements or parent elements.
You just create a conflict. Then precedence takes affect. According to the
CSS2 spec:
'white-space'
Value: normal | pre | nowrap | inherit
Julián Landerreche wrote:
I have tested this in:
- Firefox 2.0.0.6 (both Win and Linux)
Hmm. Not convinced that it's a bug; your line-wrapped link appears as
you want in FF2.0.0.6/Mac OSX - ?
To look at the issue laterally, if your fixed-width table requires that
long links wrap, why invo
