On 2008-04-01, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <slrnfv5906.lu.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>> 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:
>> >...
>> >> > 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.
>
> True, with FF, one can save one's breath for all the notice it takes of
> this in a table.

Min-width on table-cells does fall through the cracks a bit. The spec
doesn't say it doesn't apply to them, but in the bit that tells you what
to do with min-width (10.4), it refers you back to "Calculating widths
and Margins 10.3" which explains everything except tables and table
cells.

And you obviously can't just blindly apply the rules in 10.4 to table
cells since all cells in a column have to have the same width.