Originally Posted by jono1 and in any case they've most likely fixed their box-model screwup in IE 7 so your point is moot. when people start using IE7 en masse you're going to be left with websites that look completely wrong on 90% of the worlds computers. don't take this the wrong way but you seem to have a lot of weird perceptions...the first and most prominent being that you seem to think Javascript has anything at all to do with page layout....JS is for adding functionality like popup menus (although these are possible entirely in CSS anyway). If you rely on Javascript for layout then you're gonna have lots of problems because a lot of people simply have Javascript support turned off.

Nah, I am using Internet Explorer 7, the box model is still right

I know! It is great. I don't think JavaScript is to do with Layout perse, CSS is for Layout. As far as I am aware I have only referred to JavaScript in a Layout sense for its use as a way to Hack the stupidity of the W3C's Box model in Browsers that are not Internet Explorer. Perhaps it is possible to do this in CSS, just like perhaps it is possible to do a lot of the Hover effects on my page in CSS. However, for the Description Box specifically it makes sense to use JavaScript to hack the problem out rather than CSS. Firstly because I don't know the first thing about CSS other than how to make stuff look like I want it, which is of course the whole point but the rest I do not know. Secondly because I like JavaScript. Thirdly because a lot of other stuff is being done to the Description through the JavaScript already. It is only three lines of code to sort out the Firefox problem extra. The only reason the JavaScript is positioning the Bar rather than just telling it not to be hidden, is because I can't say for sure the size the header will be when in use. Using JavaScript, I have it perfectly so that the Description bar is where it is everytime, without having to go back to the code for it.

JavaScript of course as you say is used for functionality not layout. In regards to my page, without JavaScript it shows fine. Even without CSS it shows fine. However, without JavaScript, it won't do anything. The page will eventually call up all content through XML Requests, so if JavaScript is turned off the user isn't going to see anything, whether I do the Menu Hovering with JavaScript or not.

However to be honest with you, nobody I care to be seeing my site is going to be having JavaScript off. Somebody who has JavaScript off is either trying very hard to be a prat and succeeding with leaps and bounds, so concerned with Security that they will probably keep Internet Browsing to an minimum anyway - just in case Aliens try to suck their head through the monitor, or also has CSS and Style Tags off so that they can sample the internet of a simpler time. Somebody who doesn't have JavaScript on is stupid, because they are cutting themselves off from the only way the Internet is going to become as functional as the Desktop.

Originally Posted by dereklapp because the css defines content width, you said so yourself. the point is also for compatability; if you can get around the illogic of CSS design, than it works everywhere. as we see here, your design doesn't work aorund it, and breaks in certain browsers. it's to force people to be good ad development.

Padding is content. The point is not for compatability, if the proper box model was on the W3C surely the guys on the 'Open is Better, let's all get High' bandwagon would pick it up between Double Gins and there would be more compatability. Why does anybody want a standard that forces them to think in a way that would get most people institutionalised. You want a standard that thinks like a normal human being, you want a language that pads out a box and protects the content inside from hitting the walls, not a language that pads the outside of a box, to protect the box from hitting things. That makes no sense and anybody would see it.

I don't want a standard that I have to compromise for; especially one that I have to compromise for only to then check it on a proper browser and have to do what I want to for a standard that makes sense. You don't need to force people to be good at development. Developers will be good given practice, and the more developers the better, if those developers are not good they won't go far, if they are they will. The standard is not there to catch them out, it doesn't actually catch them out, all it does is keep them having to work harder and harder to make sense of a standard that is worthless to a fine degree. You don't put flaws in a standard just to keep developers on their toes; if that is meant to be an excuse for the stupidity of the W3C it is not a good one.

I just cannot see how somebody can support a box model that makes no sense; especially as you just then said you have to work around the illogic of CSS. How can you support something you think you have to work around just to use?

Also to point out my design has since worked around the Firefox flaws I originally saw and a few others since. Ultimately though I spent two hours just trying to work out what was wrong with the thing in Firefox, that is how stupid that box model is; the very idea that padding goes outside the box is laughable. If I was costing me money to be here, some idiot whose mother smoked pot while pregnant with him at the W3C would have cost me way too much. Without Firefox and a load of Anarchist pig-dog Linux Folks who back it (not referring to people who back Firefox, referring to that special few who back it purely and simply because it is not Microsoft) that W3C standard would be worthless.

And it should be.