Monday, August 30, 2010

Re: same code -> different compile plattforms -> different results???

If the height is working for you, don't worry about changing it.

Keep in mind that GWT will actually send different code to different
browsers. The reason that you aren't seeing that value in Firebug in
Firefox was that Firefox was receiving a width of 100% and not the
368, but GWT was sending an inline style to IE6 and 7 to account for
some of the rendering problems in IE. However, that panel was designed
to be used in quirks mode, so GWT is sending values that don't work in
standards mode, which is what you're using.

I don't remember for sure if IE7 has it, but IE8 and the IE9 developer/
platform preview both have "Developer Tools" (either F12 or under
Tools) which allows you to do similar things to Firebug. The IE9
preview lets you switch between IE5, IE7, IE8, and IE9 rendering modes
while IE8 lets you switch between IE7 and IE8. I'd recommend checking
each version of the browser directly if possible as those rendering
modes don't always do a perfect job and there may be minor
differences, but at least the developer tools should get you in the
ballpark.

On Aug 30, 7:29 am, Magnus <alpineblas...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Falcon,
>
> thank you very much!!!
> This works perfectly!
>
> I just copied your code in my main html file, right at the end of the
> head tag.
>
> Could you tell me how you found out that the width was set to 368 px?
> In FF I have FireBug, but it did not show this width. In IE I have
> nothing similar.
>
> Another question: Why should I change the height from 35px to 33px? I
> had no problem with the heigt...
>
> Thank you again!
>
> Now I can proceed with my app...
>
> Magnus
>
> On 27 Aug., 16:22, Falcon <msu.fal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem in the example code that you posted is that the width is
> > getting set to 368px on the table in the inline style, which is
> > overriding the width: 100% that you want. Now, I'm not looking at this
> > with IE7, but with IE9 developer preview in IE7 standards mode, so
> > it's possible that there's a bug with that that's not showing me what
> > I should actually be seeing, but if you change width to 100% on both
> > the top table (class="TitleBar") and bottom table
> > (class="CommandBar"), then also change the height of CommandBar to
> > 35px from 33, that should give you what you're wanting.
>
> > I think part of the problem is that GWT uses the same codepath for IE6
> > and IE7, so they're using an inline style fix to accomodate IE6 that's
> > breaking IE7. (When looking at that page in Firefox, the width on
> > those tables is set to 100% instead of a numeric value.)
>
> > The easiest way to fix this yourself would be to use a conditional
> > comment with your styles inside. e.g.:
> > <!--[if IE 7]>
> > <style type="text/css">
> > table.TitleBar {
> > width: 100% !important;}
>
> > table.CommandBar {
> > width: 100% !important;
> > height: 35px !important;}
>
> > </style>
> > <![endif]-->
>
> > Normally, I'd recommend you do this just in the IE7 code path of GWT,
> > but from what I remember, GWT combines IE6 and IE7 into the same
> > codepath by default. I'm not a big fan of !important declarations in
> > CSS in general, but in this case, since GWT is putting inline styles
> > on the element, I don't see a way around it unless you find a way to
> > override those styles in GWT itself, which would probably mean
> > manually splitting IE6 and IE7 into their own codepaths.
>
> > Hope that helps!
>
> > On Aug 27, 4:12 am, Magnus <alpineblas...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > For convenience I uploaded a minimalistic live demo with source code:http://www.bavaria64.de:8080/LayoutProblem

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.

No comments:

Post a Comment