Tables work differently; sometimes counter-intuitively.
The solution is to use width
on the table cells instead of max-width
.
Although it may sound like in that case the cells won't shrink below the given width, they will actually.
with no restrictions on c, if you give the table a width of 70px, the widths of a, b and c will come out as 16, 42 and 12 pixels, respectively.
With a table width of 400 pixels, they behave like you say you expect in your grid above.
Only when you try to give the table too small a size (smaller than a.min+b.min+the content of C) will it fail: then the table itself will be wider than specified.
I made a snippet based on your fiddle, in which I removed all the borders and paddings and border-spacing, so you can measure the widths more accurately.
table {
width: 70px;
}
table, tbody, tr, td {
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
border: 0;
border-spacing: 0;
}
.a, .c {
background-color: red;
}
.b {
background-color: #F77;
}
.a {
min-width: 10px;
width: 20px;
max-width: 20px;
}
.b {
min-width: 40px;
width: 45px;
max-width: 45px;
}
.c {}
<table>
<tr>
<td class="a">A</td>
<td class="b">B</td>
<td class="c">C</td>
</tr>
</table>
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…