10%-marker

40px-marker

**1.a.** table width:auto; sum of % is 90, where is this width coming from?

10%

50%

30%

**1.a.1** table width:auto; sum of % is 90, but first column has different intrinsic dim, where is this width coming from?

10%---

50%

30%

**1.b.** table width:auto; sum of % is 9, why width of the table is so dramatically different from 1.a case?

1%

5%

3%

**1.b.1** table width:auto; sum of % is 9. but first column has different intrinsic dim, why is it different from the case 1.b (in Gecko and WebKit)?

1%---

5%

3%

**1.c.** table width:auto; sum of % is 100%. Width of the table anyone?

10%

50%

40%

**2.a.** table width:100%; sum of % is 90

10%

50%

30%

**2.b.** table width:100%; sum of % is 9, why cells dimensions are different from case 2.a in Gecko?

1%

5%

3%

**2.c.** table width:100%; sum of % is 100%

10%

50%

40%

**3.a.** table width:auto; sum of % is 90, where is this width comes from?

40px

10%

50%

30%

**3.a.1** table width:auto; sum of % is 90, but first % column has different intrinsic dim... Why 40px here is different from 40px above?

40px

10%---

50%

30%

**3.b.** table width:auto; sum of % is 9, why width of the table is different from 1.a case?

40px

1%

5%

3%

**3.b.1** table width:auto; sum of % is 9. but first column has different intrinsic dim, why it is different from the case 1.b (in Gecko and WebKit)?

40px

1%---

5%

3%

**3.c.** table width:auto; sum of % is 100%. Width of the table anyone?

40px

10%

50%

40%

**4.a.** sum of % is 90

40px

10%

50%

30%

**4.a.1** sum of % is 90

40px

10%---

50%

30%

**4.b.** sum of % is 9

40px

1%

5%

3%

**4.b.1** sum of % is 9

40px

1%---

5%

3%

**4.c.** is 100%.

40px

10%

50%

40%

**4.c.1** is 99%. Why this is so different from 4.b? Some magic triggers this difference?

40px

10%

50%

39%