<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: min/max-width/height supported by IE7!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/</link>
	<description>News, opinion, and fresh thinking for web developers and designers. The official podcast of sitepoint.com.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:29:21 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: chinnappa</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/comment-page-1/#comment-765905</link>
		<dc:creator>chinnappa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:43:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/#comment-765905</guid>
		<description>Jason DAngelo, your comments really don’t make sense, i thnk you should try the basics, learn how css and XHTML/HTML works then re-address your comments.

Since i changed over to css a long time ago my life became soooo much simpler, once you grasp the basics your away (inheritence can cause issues to the newbie).

Opera isn’t all that bad, i’ll take it over IE anytime, anyone who says IE works better than opera because it will render non standard pages better must be using a horse and cart to get to work in the morning because it never runs out of petrol, wake up to the year 2008.

Standards are important, would you like to drive down the moterway with people choosing which direction they go in as no one set the standard of which side of the road people drive on. Yes some of the rules could be a little iffy, but that comes in all walks of life.

About time IE pulled it’s finger out, THE worst browser ever, maybe IE8 will address this, they seem pretty convinced that it’s the way to go now.

For all those conspirers out there, maybe the whole reason IE never supported standards (or did it badly) was to keep market share, people only coded for IE as it was the only browser being used way back when, now they have competition it would be silly to change and support standards, badly coded sites only look good in IE as it was all they where tested in, it’s their way of locking people in to IE. Same reason they didn’t want to support the open document standard in word, poeple have choice 
chinnappa height 6.1 as on 2008</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jason DAngelo, your comments really don’t make sense, i thnk you should try the basics, learn how css and XHTML/HTML works then re-address your comments.</p>
<p>Since i changed over to css a long time ago my life became soooo much simpler, once you grasp the basics your away (inheritence can cause issues to the newbie).</p>
<p>Opera isn’t all that bad, i’ll take it over IE anytime, anyone who says IE works better than opera because it will render non standard pages better must be using a horse and cart to get to work in the morning because it never runs out of petrol, wake up to the year 2008.</p>
<p>Standards are important, would you like to drive down the moterway with people choosing which direction they go in as no one set the standard of which side of the road people drive on. Yes some of the rules could be a little iffy, but that comes in all walks of life.</p>
<p>About time IE pulled it’s finger out, THE worst browser ever, maybe IE8 will address this, they seem pretty convinced that it’s the way to go now.</p>
<p>For all those conspirers out there, maybe the whole reason IE never supported standards (or did it badly) was to keep market share, people only coded for IE as it was the only browser being used way back when, now they have competition it would be silly to change and support standards, badly coded sites only look good in IE as it was all they where tested in, it’s their way of locking people in to IE. Same reason they didn’t want to support the open document standard in word, poeple have choice<br />
chinnappa height 6.1 as on 2008</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: smiffy6969</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/comment-page-1/#comment-647443</link>
		<dc:creator>smiffy6969</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:44:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/#comment-647443</guid>
		<description>Jason DAngelo, your comments really don&#039;t make sense, i thnk you should try the basics, learn how css and XHTML/HTML works then re-address your comments.

Since i changed over to css a long time ago my life became soooo much simpler, once you grasp the basics your away (inheritence can cause issues to the newbie).

Opera isn&#039;t all that bad, i&#039;ll take it over IE anytime, anyone who says IE works better than opera because it will render non standard pages better must be using a horse and cart to get to work in the morning because it never runs out of petrol, wake up to the year 2008.

Standards are important, would you like to drive down the moterway with people choosing which direction they go in as no one set the standard of which side of the road people drive on. Yes some of the rules could be a little iffy, but that comes in all walks of life.

About time IE pulled it&#039;s finger out, THE worst browser ever, maybe IE8 will address this, they seem pretty convinced that it&#039;s the way to go now.

For all those conspirers out there, maybe the whole reason IE never supported standards (or did it badly) was to keep market share, people only coded for IE as it was the only browser being used way back when, now they have competition it would be silly to change and support standards, badly coded sites only look good in IE as it was all they where tested in, it&#039;s their way of locking people in to IE. Same reason they didn&#039;t want to support the open document standard in word, poeple have choice then.

smiffy6969</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jason DAngelo, your comments really don&#8217;t make sense, i thnk you should try the basics, learn how css and XHTML/HTML works then re-address your comments.</p>
<p>Since i changed over to css a long time ago my life became soooo much simpler, once you grasp the basics your away (inheritence can cause issues to the newbie).</p>
<p>Opera isn&#8217;t all that bad, i&#8217;ll take it over IE anytime, anyone who says IE works better than opera because it will render non standard pages better must be using a horse and cart to get to work in the morning because it never runs out of petrol, wake up to the year 2008.</p>
<p>Standards are important, would you like to drive down the moterway with people choosing which direction they go in as no one set the standard of which side of the road people drive on. Yes some of the rules could be a little iffy, but that comes in all walks of life.</p>
<p>About time IE pulled it&#8217;s finger out, THE worst browser ever, maybe IE8 will address this, they seem pretty convinced that it&#8217;s the way to go now.</p>
<p>For all those conspirers out there, maybe the whole reason IE never supported standards (or did it badly) was to keep market share, people only coded for IE as it was the only browser being used way back when, now they have competition it would be silly to change and support standards, badly coded sites only look good in IE as it was all they where tested in, it&#8217;s their way of locking people in to IE. Same reason they didn&#8217;t want to support the open document standard in word, poeple have choice then.</p>
<p>smiffy6969</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BB</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/comment-page-1/#comment-389973</link>
		<dc:creator>BB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2007 07:06:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/#comment-389973</guid>
		<description>Nevetheless, the above comment dident make much sense to the experianced css coder.

However i agree, tables are still better at getting it done, if your a noob at css.

Hay, its not that hard to know what is used where, just take a quick look at the class and id names, thats not so hard.

You can even dump your oldstyle css hacks, and move on to CCs, that should solve most problems in IE.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nevetheless, the above comment dident make much sense to the experianced css coder.</p>
<p>However i agree, tables are still better at getting it done, if your a noob at css.</p>
<p>Hay, its not that hard to know what is used where, just take a quick look at the class and id names, thats not so hard.</p>
<p>You can even dump your oldstyle css hacks, and move on to CCs, that should solve most problems in IE.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason DAngelo</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/comment-page-1/#comment-103782</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason DAngelo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2006 12:11:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/#comment-103782</guid>
		<description>You know... this junk is really starting to P**S me off.

It has taken them ten years to rewrite code that is more complex to achieve the most simple things, and they still stink at it!

I am not knocking IE, I am knocking the idiots who come up with these stupid HTML and CSS standards, which are hardly standard, even if followed to a T.

When was the last time that Text was ever an issue with the shape of your page? The most major issue is with images! Their placement, their interaction and their options all stink. Not one browser handles images correctly! They may handle the image as the standard implies... but the idiots who made the standards are coders... they deal with words, not worlds! Worlds include visual representations which people call images. We don&#039;t only use text!

Case in point... Funny that Max-Width and Min-Width appear first to a text format, and not even considered for an image format. Do these guys live in caves? Well, I guess not, because most caves have images on the walls!

90% of the web-pages don&#039;t follow standards and have some form of &quot;HACK&quot; because the standards not only suck, but they are not standard. have you ever seen a fully compliant page... does it actually look good... on all browsers... or at all?

CSS is neat, but it means you have to have two forms of code now... one to format the page where CSS doesn&#039;t work, or respond like it should, and then a separate set of code for the actual CSS. That is as idiotic as keeping your cars tires in the attic, while your wheel-less car sits on blocks in your garage. Every morning you climb into your attic to get your wheels and throw them on your car before you go to work. How has that simplified web design.

The theory was neat... Oh, well, you just change one piece of code and.... Yea, your whole website is freaked out... because you had to make all these exceptions and rules and changes just to get the old CSS to function like you wanted... and now, when they change the was CSS is handled... all your pages become messed, and you have to spend hours reprogramming, and trying to figure out which element is actually using that code... since it is separate, and there is nothing that points that code to what uses it... (But if it were inside the actual HTML being used...

Oh wait... Some times it is... and you have to dig through hundreds of pages to find that... (Where has that saved you time, or size?)

If you ask me... all elements should have the same available options, even if they do nothing.

IMG Width= Absolute, or Percent, or Min-Max/L-W, or Stretch, or None.

Here is an idea... any value that is NONE should be (CENTER) and (MIDDLE) and (TRUE VALUES)... not (LEFT sometimes, CENTER sometimes, TOP sometimes)

Of all things to be depreciated... (CENTER) and (/CENTER) are they idiots... that is the only flawless formatting HTML that exists! It works 100% and almost every page in the world uses it... somewhere! Funny that the CSS equivalent that they expect to replace it, doesn&#039;t work most of the time! It can&#039;t decide if you want center on the screen size, or center of your table, or center of your paragraph margin... I have had CENTER move text on a stagnant page in three locations, just by reloading it! Great standards, morons!

Yea, I am glad that my text won&#039;t expand too far! Because (TABLE % wasn&#039;t working... and it was too hard to put a blank image or div in there to keep it from shrinking too small.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know&#8230; this junk is really starting to P**S me off.</p>
<p>It has taken them ten years to rewrite code that is more complex to achieve the most simple things, and they still stink at it!</p>
<p>I am not knocking IE, I am knocking the idiots who come up with these stupid HTML and CSS standards, which are hardly standard, even if followed to a T.</p>
<p>When was the last time that Text was ever an issue with the shape of your page? The most major issue is with images! Their placement, their interaction and their options all stink. Not one browser handles images correctly! They may handle the image as the standard implies&#8230; but the idiots who made the standards are coders&#8230; they deal with words, not worlds! Worlds include visual representations which people call images. We don&#8217;t only use text!</p>
<p>Case in point&#8230; Funny that Max-Width and Min-Width appear first to a text format, and not even considered for an image format. Do these guys live in caves? Well, I guess not, because most caves have images on the walls!</p>
<p>90% of the web-pages don&#8217;t follow standards and have some form of &#8220;HACK&#8221; because the standards not only suck, but they are not standard. have you ever seen a fully compliant page&#8230; does it actually look good&#8230; on all browsers&#8230; or at all?</p>
<p>CSS is neat, but it means you have to have two forms of code now&#8230; one to format the page where CSS doesn&#8217;t work, or respond like it should, and then a separate set of code for the actual CSS. That is as idiotic as keeping your cars tires in the attic, while your wheel-less car sits on blocks in your garage. Every morning you climb into your attic to get your wheels and throw them on your car before you go to work. How has that simplified web design.</p>
<p>The theory was neat&#8230; Oh, well, you just change one piece of code and&#8230;. Yea, your whole website is freaked out&#8230; because you had to make all these exceptions and rules and changes just to get the old CSS to function like you wanted&#8230; and now, when they change the was CSS is handled&#8230; all your pages become messed, and you have to spend hours reprogramming, and trying to figure out which element is actually using that code&#8230; since it is separate, and there is nothing that points that code to what uses it&#8230; (But if it were inside the actual HTML being used&#8230;</p>
<p>Oh wait&#8230; Some times it is&#8230; and you have to dig through hundreds of pages to find that&#8230; (Where has that saved you time, or size?)</p>
<p>If you ask me&#8230; all elements should have the same available options, even if they do nothing.</p>
<p>IMG Width= Absolute, or Percent, or Min-Max/L-W, or Stretch, or None.</p>
<p>Here is an idea&#8230; any value that is NONE should be (CENTER) and (MIDDLE) and (TRUE VALUES)&#8230; not (LEFT sometimes, CENTER sometimes, TOP sometimes)</p>
<p>Of all things to be depreciated&#8230; (CENTER) and (/CENTER) are they idiots&#8230; that is the only flawless formatting HTML that exists! It works 100% and almost every page in the world uses it&#8230; somewhere! Funny that the CSS equivalent that they expect to replace it, doesn&#8217;t work most of the time! It can&#8217;t decide if you want center on the screen size, or center of your table, or center of your paragraph margin&#8230; I have had CENTER move text on a stagnant page in three locations, just by reloading it! Great standards, morons!</p>
<p>Yea, I am glad that my text won&#8217;t expand too far! Because (TABLE % wasn&#8217;t working&#8230; and it was too hard to put a blank image or div in there to keep it from shrinking too small.)</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/comment-page-1/#comment-93584</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:15:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/#comment-93584</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t know what everyone is ****ing about, the question should be why we have had to wait so long for such a basic feature from the worlds most popular browser.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know what everyone is ****ing about, the question should be why we have had to wait so long for such a basic feature from the worlds most popular browser.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Screen Resolution - Some Simple Advice &#124; StayGoLinks</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/comment-page-1/#comment-41695</link>
		<dc:creator>Screen Resolution - Some Simple Advice &#124; StayGoLinks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:18:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/#comment-41695</guid>
		<description>[...] This whole field is so complex that I think we&#8217;ve got to consider that new paradigm of Web pages that he suggests is needed. Until we get that, I do not believe that fluid designs are robust enough to cope with all those different screen widths that may be encountered. Very long lines of text just do not work. If only Internet Explorer had supported the max-width concept in CSS, then Jakob Nielsen could have suggested flexible design within a maximum width. It appears Internet Explorer Version 7, when it comes will support max-width, so perhaps he will change his advice at that time. Now that would be much more acceptable. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This whole field is so complex that I think we&#8217;ve got to consider that new paradigm of Web pages that he suggests is needed. Until we get that, I do not believe that fluid designs are robust enough to cope with all those different screen widths that may be encountered. Very long lines of text just do not work. If only Internet Explorer had supported the max-width concept in CSS, then Jakob Nielsen could have suggested flexible design within a maximum width. It appears Internet Explorer Version 7, when it comes will support max-width, so perhaps he will change his advice at that time. Now that would be much more acceptable. [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mariuszn3</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/comment-page-1/#comment-35396</link>
		<dc:creator>mariuszn3</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2006 22:40:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/#comment-35396</guid>
		<description>sorry for misinformation in previous post.. I&#039;ve just installed beta 3 and min-height is working! :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sorry for misinformation in previous post.. I&#8217;ve just installed beta 3 and min-height is working! :)</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mariuszn3</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/comment-page-1/#comment-35381</link>
		<dc:creator>mariuszn3</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2006 21:15:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/#comment-35381</guid>
		<description>Yeah.. let&#039;s clear that.. IE7 doesn&#039;t support min-width and min-height!
It&#039;s even worse - height now works as it should work and we can&#039;t use it as min-height alias (that way was in previous ie versions) So it looks that there&#039;s no way to get min-height in ie7.. I don&#039;t know maybe it can be tricked using expressions :(</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah.. let&#8217;s clear that.. IE7 doesn&#8217;t support min-width and min-height!<br />
It&#8217;s even worse &#8211; height now works as it should work and we can&#8217;t use it as min-height alias (that way was in previous ie versions) So it looks that there&#8217;s no way to get min-height in ie7.. I don&#8217;t know maybe it can be tricked using expressions :(</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mywebmasternewsblog.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187;</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/comment-page-1/#comment-33641</link>
		<dc:creator>mywebmasternewsblog.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:07:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/#comment-33641</guid>
		<description>[...] Of course, with IE 7, that&#8217;s exactly what they&#8217;ve done (to a point), so this proprietary hodgepodge will soon be moot. But in the meantime - and for several years to come, because let&#8217;s be honest, few sites are going to cut off support for IE 6 right away - this is your solution. That is, unless it crashes your browser. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Of course, with IE 7, that&#8217;s exactly what they&#8217;ve done (to a point), so this proprietary hodgepodge will soon be moot. But in the meantime &#8211; and for several years to come, because let&#8217;s be honest, few sites are going to cut off support for IE 6 right away &#8211; this is your solution. That is, unless it crashes your browser. [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/comment-page-1/#comment-29108</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2006 22:33:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/03/21/minmax-widthheight-supported-by-ie7/#comment-29108</guid>
		<description>has anyone actually tested this? I&#039;m testing in IE7 right now and min-width certainly does not work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>has anyone actually tested this? I&#8217;m testing in IE7 right now and min-width certainly does not work.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
