Talk:Internet Explorer box model bug

message: Although height is assumed to be in the same issue as width with this box model discussion, it is not discussed in the diagram that goes with the article. This might confuse newbies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volomike (talk • contribs) 15:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fails To Mention Height

message: tantek's box model hack is big and clunky, IMO it's much more elegant to just do
 padding: 50px;
 width: 200px;
 width: "300px";
the final rule is only read by IE in quirks mode as it ignores the quotes, providing they correctly wrap the value. you can also narrow the rule to be truly IE-only by prepending an underscore:
 _width: "300px";
as only IE (in quirks mode) will treat "width" and "_width" as the same thing.
obviously, though, this does not validate against the w3c standards but is much easier to use in a css file as it is inline, all that is needed is a comment explaining WTF it does, final result:
 div.mydiv
 {
     padding: 50px;
     width: 200px;
     _width: "300px";    /* hack: IE 5 box model width */
 }
i've been plugging away at explorer and have a test page showing various "inline" hacks at my website
http://www.cyclomedia.co.uk/?9
213.249.159.244 14:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 213.249.159.244's solution

message: "Since the inner box must exist within the border and padding of the outer box, using the IE box model, the inner box's 50% width will take up more than 50% of the content space available to it."
After some analysis, it turns out this is not true, though by rights it certainly should be. QuirksMode (via no doctype) in IE results in:
http://www.pinkgothic.com/padding-percentage.gif
It's a screenshot of a page render of the following source code (with the '25 pixels padding' comment added manually and the pink line to denote what the counterpoint paragraph claims):
 <html>
  <head>
   <title>blah
   </title>
  </head>
  <body>
   
    
      
    
   
   
   
    
      
    
   
  </body>
 </html>
The source code is as simple as it gets, I realise.
At any rate, it seems to be undeniable that IE (whether it should by it's own logic or not) uses 50% of the content-width that is available in the buggy box model.
I started investigating this briefly because the paragraph confused me - I first misunderstood, even; then thought, "So why haven't I ever seen that alleged behaviour? It makes sense that that is what would happen," and had to check. The result is that screenshot.
What's even more confusing: the moment you add a padding of 25px to the inner box, it is the W3C model that causes this kind of behaviour, though on purely visual levels (in its own logics, it is perfectly correct) - the width from border to border is then 50% + 25px + 25px, meaning you cannot fit another 50% box into the outer box without extending it's content width. ( http://www.pinkgothic.com/padding-percentage2.gif )
Perhaps the paragraph can be reworded along the lines of 'The expected behaviour of the IE box model is [...]' - as it is worded now, I find it not to be a very good counterpoint under scrutiny.
I hope this observation will help someone. :) -pinkgothic 16:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Counterpoint 

message: Among the many problems in this new section are:
* weasel words (e.g. "several web designers")
* No sources cited
* Speculation on why CSS3 has the box-model property. It may be to appease the "several web designers" that prefer the box model, or it may be simply to make it easy for sites designed according to the box model bug to be made standards compliant and work in all browsers. We need a reliable source for this information rather than a guess.
* The CSS3 specification is currently just a working draft, but this section makes it sound like the box-model property will definitely be included in the final specification. The fact is that is may be removed at any time.
I don't have a problem with the content as long as these problems are addressed ASAP. -- Schapel 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Schapel, I was not even finished with editing and putting in a selection of sources when you wrote that comment. Now that I discovered it and the lengthy discussion here, I have incorporated some of your other suggestions. However, the weasel will be hard to avoid since its impossible to determine what fraction of designers is supporting the one or the other model, and whose opinion counts how much. However, the points made in favor of the IE model and against the W3C specification themselves are valid and cited in a number of sources, and therefore belong to the article as an existing alternative view. Bluebird47 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There probably isn't any way to "determine what fraction of designers is supporting the one or the other model." The best you'll be able to do is to cite sources and attribute opinions. I completely agree that the points made are valid, and even if they're invalid they belong in the article. It's not our place to judge whether points are valid or not. We simply report what those points are, attributing those points by citing reliable sources. -- Schapel 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Should we have the "bug" in the title? I know it has been discusse before but things have changed since then. While it is definitely a bug as far as compliance to standards (circa IE6) is concerned, things have changed now. Its a part of the CSS3 working draft. And IE now exposes the border box model as a CSS feature, to be opted in using the -ms-box-sizing attribute. That definitely is not a bug.--soum talk 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Although this question has been debated for a very long time (just look above in this page), I think that there are no strong arguments, if any, to say that IE pre-IE6 box model was bugged. Indeed, there is enough evidence to proof that this is NOT a bug! It should be called a non-W3C-compliant behavior. In my opinion, the article could explain that some sources states this behavior as a bug, when it’s indeed just a non-W3C-compliant behavior. Insisting that this is a “bug” is a strong non-neutral point of view. --Wizard IT (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In some future CSS3 article, we may discuss the detailed features of CSS3, and maybe mention their history, if someone publishes the W3C's discussions and thinking processes in a way we can cite.  This article is about the 'Internet Explorer box model bug': It was a bug (as stated by Soumyasch above), it was called a bug by those who wrote about it at the time (including those who found and published the workarounds), it never got fixed, and it caused lots of web pages to display inconsistently until developers learned the CSS hacks to work around it. This article is about the bug where some MS developers either didn't read the spec before writing their code, or read it and decided they could do better than the W3C spec. Everyone called it this at the time, and that's why this is the right name for the article. The -ms-box-sizing feature and the stuff in CSS3 presumably aren't bugs, but this is not about them - this is about the 'Internet Explorer box model bug'.  How much clearer can that be? --Nigelj (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It clearly isn't a bug. A bug is an error, not a difference of opinion. The major problem is that the CSS for reasons best known to themselves chose a nonsensical "box" model which is counter-intuitive (as demonstrated by the metaphor of a real, physical box and its contents) and which has no merits of its own. It is a very great pity that they could not recognise that they had boobed, and changed the official spec to the superior IE model. At least we have the grudging "box-size" inclusion to work with. But I find it hard to believe that anyone would think the W3C spec is superior to the IE spec on merit alone. So anyway, it clearly isn't a bug, by any normal definition of the term "bug".82.71.30.178 (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug in the title 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support nominator. --Voidvector (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: , , .  Please try to be more civil and to assume good faith --Nigelj (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Please try to be more civil and to assume good faith." Same to you. --Voidvector (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support nominator. --Voidvector (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I'm less interested in whether Bill's variation was a mistake than in how web designers can use the CSS box model. I'm even willing to help write an article about the box model, and I've started a disambiguation page. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The only web designers 'using' "Bill's variation" will be writing web pages for IE5.5 and earlier. This is a very small and diminishing market for them, I would say, in these days of online updates. The rest can refer to the main CSS article and the specs available from W3C.  --Nigelj (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: CSS box model

message: My motivation is to let others know all I have recently learned about CSS and its box model. I could care less whether IE has a "bug" or design flaw; or they just decided to be different to stifle their competition. All I care about is helping other web developers to write workable code.
Now if anyone wants to join me in some collaborative writing, then let's share our energy and explain what the box model is, how it works, and how to use it. I don't want to fight or argue. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is not a bug, but a deliberate choice to implement it that way, then it should not say "bug". Especially if the other major browser, Netscape, implemented it the same way. --Joshua Issac (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[CSS box model]]

message: This claim seems to be not true (kind of web design urban legend). MSDN and other relieble sources on browser modes (e.g. http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/) don't confirm that any browser changes the rendering mode if the part of the document is already loaded and rendered. It's true that the errors in the document may be treated differently in Quirks mode and in Standards compliance mode, but these rules are defined only once — in the beginning of the document parsing, when Doctype is parsed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.124.157.26 (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quirks mode triggering if "there are errors anywhere in the document" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Internet Explorer box model bug. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115183512/http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2004/02/css-ie-only to http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2004/02/css-ie-only
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209090244/http://webdesign.about.com/od/css/a/aaboxmodelhack.htm to http://webdesign.about.com/od/css/a/aaboxmodelhack.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103111556/http://renownedmedia.com/blog/css-box-model-differences-in-firefox-and-internet-explorer/ to http://renownedmedia.com/blog/css-box-model-differences-in-firefox-and-internet-explorer/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified