alt131 - 1:43 am on Jun 2, 2011 (gmt 0)
Hi Suzy, So good to see you back. (For those unaware, Suze used to mod here; )
Thanks for that. Maybe poor choice of wording on my part: The table has internal elements such as images that are holding it this wide (or there-a-bouts) as well as the explicitly set width.
Second, this isn't a difference between monitors:
On all monitors (except one), there is no scrollbar in ie and chrome. While on the same monitor there is a scrollbar in firefox.
The only variation is that on one monitor there is no scrollbar in any of them. And yes, my guess is this will have a wider resolution - hence asking Laura to check so that variable can be eliminated..
I can't see anything in the code that would cause ff to interpret a full 25% wider than Chrome and ie, and although testing across a range of versions I can't reproduce any differences here: At all screen resolutions and across a range of browsers/versions the scrollbar (or not) is so close to being the same as not to matter. Recalling we're looking for a reason for a 25% difference in width so a few pix here and there isn't relevant.
BUT you know what it is like though nested tables in the early hours - so another pair of eyes is most welcome!