Image vs Column Width

Minisweeper

And lets get firefox's MAJOR memory and CPU hogging issues sorted so it's a much less evil alternative (dont get me wrong i still love and use firefox, but why does it need to be such a resource bitch?)

0bvious

The main reason I still use IE is because it is faster. Simple really

Minisweeper

I couldnt survive without tags. Faster in what way? I dont find firefox slow atall it's just a resource hog.

giginger

Firefox only slows down when you load it up with extensions. It's a resource hog whatever though. That's the only thing I don't like. Opera is nice and quick but I just couldn't get to grips with it as it were. As for IE. That browser pisses me off. Even with tabs.

0bvious

Sorry to bring this up again, but this max width problem is super annoying. I have this in my css at the moment:

.Comment img {
width: expression(Math.min(this.width, 440) + "px");
max-width: 440px;
height: auto;
}

Now, the "max-width" expression works great in Firefox, and the "expression(Math.min(this.width, 440) + "px"); " seems to work in IE, but only some of the time! (I have tried the same expressions under just ".img" and ".body img" - no difference.)

Half the time when the page loads up a selection of images on screen have been shrunk down to 41 pixels wide. What the hell is going on?

I have never seen this happen anywhere else. Is this a clash in Vanilla or an attempt by IE to make me go insane?

Cheers

nathan

Why don't you just do this? it is super simple!

.Comment img { width: 90%; // or something like that. That will be a bit smaller than the window width of the .Comment area }

It may look as though that would make the width of the image 90% of the images width, but it actually sets it to 90% of the element width the image is nested in (in this case, the .Comment).

Give that a go.

nathan

Wait. I see. If the image is smaller than it, it gets resized. Not good. Sorry.