RE: [NH] Two Tables
- Hi Lotta and Greg,
Thanks to Lotta for getting my two tables working in all the
latest browsers, and almost in NS4.7. It was mainly because I
was using numbers 1/2) to differentiate between the two tables.
As somebody suggested table.aaa and table.bbb earlier, but I just
figured that was just one way of doing it and that numbers would
make no difference. In NS4.7 border: is not allowed as far as I
can tell. I'm wondering if I can use a 1x1 px for the cell
background to at least get some of the table working in NS4.7.
Furthermore, the two table displays funky - they bother are not
set at 640px and the font-size is ignored in the second table.
Strange cookie it is. Here is the page which displays correctly
now in IE, Opera, Mozilla 9.4 (which I assume will display
correctly in NS6. 4.7 is not my only headache. The validators
all said everything was OK, when in fact is was not OK. I used
about 4 of them. In fact, there was a non-existent "tag" that
was not fond bad and another that was missing a semi-colon that
was not found bad by them. CSS validators and a standard in all
browsers still has a ways to go yet IMO.
My only teal concern now is getting the two tables to line up at
640px in NS4.7 and to at least get the cell backgrounds to work.
I know that NS4.7 does not recognize "border:" which is mainly
the problem in 4.7. Thanks once again Lotta. You the woMan. ;-)
>> For example, as I read it, there's nothing in the standard thatHappy HTML'n!
>> specifies that a background image to a table can't restart
>> displaying from the top left hand corner of each cell in the
>In fact, there is nothing in the standard that says you can use
>background images in tables at all. This must be one of the most
>hushed up non standard practices around. No one wants to be
>without their backgrounds in tables so even the ones that are
>most pro standard keep their mouth shut mostly. But there it is,
>background isn't an attribute neither to TABLE nor to TD but
>works pretty well anyway I must say.
The NoteTab and Html List...
- Hi Greg,
Just letting you know I read your post in full and don't have
much of a comment to speak of other than the so-called latest and
greatest 4.0 and CSS is more messed up than the regular old HTML.
If history takes it course, just about the time they get it to
some working degree, they will come out with something else to
mess it all up again. I'm starting to see my earlier objections
to all the change as becoming more of a reality and nightmare.
They rave about <font>, but yet use font-weight. Hypocrites is
all I have to say. ;) and yes, I'm having a bad hair day. ;)
>> wc3/css says there are no errors found when I validate the page,Happy HTML'n!
>> but yet NS and Opera refuse to display the page as IE the way I
>> have it.
>As you rapidly discover when trying to do anything HTML/CSS standards
>are not followed by software houses. In part that is the standard's
>fault. Often you can interpret them in a variety of ways, or they are
>silent on particular points. It means that it may be valid to render
>the same code in a number of ways.
>I guess it's inevitable. Standard creating bodies are not driven by
>the market, but in the real world software publishers are always
>trying to find a way to make their product better than another. One
>way to do that is to provide additional non-standard features.
>> I'm starting to wonder if I should even mess
>> with CSS anymore except for maybe when I want to do a special
>> effect like making boxes.
>IMHO that would be a backward step! The principal of CSS is
>definitely the right one, and it does give you far more flexibility
>than plain HTML.
>However, I understand your frustration. I have the same one. I am
>only a hobbyist too. I once spend a while trying to make one of my
>sites render as I wanted in both Navigator and Internet Explorer. In
>the end I found it impossible. So I made sure my site look OK in
>MSIE, validated the HTML and said to hell with Navigator users. If
>they insist in using a browser that can't render frames or tables
>according to the standard, let 'em stew!
>It isn't an entirely fair approach. For example, as I read it,
>there's nothing in the standard that specifies that a background image
>to a table can't restart displaying from the top left hand corner of
>each cell in the table. However, to my mind doing it that way, as
>Navigator does, is insane. If I put a background image in the table I
>expect it to run across the whole table with each cell displaying its
>content over a different part of the image. But navigator restarts
>the image from the top left in each cell, effectively tiling the same
>corner of the full image in each cell. It may not break the standard,
>but it's a lousy approach and I don't think any normal person would
>expect it to be rendered in that way.
>That's not to say that I don't recognise that MSIE doesn't have it's
>own peculiarities in the way it chooses to render things but, for good
>or ill, the majority of browsers will see it in a way I feel is
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=207641.1594108.3142424.1269402/D=egroupweb/S=1705375618:HM/A=765263/R=0/*http://www.verisign.com/cgi-bin/go.cgi?a=b153340270003000>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
The NoteTab and Html List...
> Hi Greg,...
> Just letting you know I read your post in full and don't have
> much of a comment to speak of other than the so-called latest and
> greatest 4.0 and CSS is more messed up than the regular old HTML.
> They rave about <font>, but yet use font-weight. Hypocrites isAnd just to keep you dragging it out by the roots, all I can say is,
> all I have to say. ;) and yes, I'm having a bad hair day. ;)
"Yes and don't forget HTML4 is already in the trashcan! Now it's
- Hey, I really like XHTML!
(because it kind of looks like what I already did, no capitals anywhere between the < and the >.
But I would like to be able to stop learning NEW wierd things for about five minutes.
> And just to keep you dragging it out by the roots, all I can say is,
> "Yes and don't forget HTML4 is already in the trashcan! Now it's
> XHTML!" :-)
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/