On 2008-04-01, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <slrnfv2jve.hn7.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-03-31, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> > Everything depends on the details of your project, perhaps a url might
>> > . But perhaps this will give you a thought to play with: Don't
>> > bother with giving the table itself a width, try min-width in em for
>> > either all the cells or selected cells (by classing them is most
>> > reliable). Choose a size to fit the point below which text will wrap to
>> > your displeasure:
>> >
>> > td {border: 1px solid; min-width: 20em;}
>>
>> Width on table cells kind of means minimum width anyway.
>>
>> [...]
>
> Safari 2 is different to Firefox in the effects.
>
> A table with td {border: 1px solid; width: 200px;} behaves differently
> in different browsers to td {border: 1px solid; min-width: 200px;}

Yes, width and min-width are different.

Firefox seems to think that min-width doesn't apply to table cells at
all from what I can see.

But width on a table-cell is a minimum width (in the ordinary language
sense) because you only get the width you asked for if it's >= the
minimum content width.