[NH] Re: Dear Martha
- Hi Martha,
> The bride's list worked great! Thanks! I did get the fileOops! Forgive my stupidity. It would involve yet more work
> to sort by date but it is not an numerical date.
because of the way you have your dates. I can do it, but don't
know when I can get to it.
When you reply, please snip off the parts of the post not needed
to understand your reply. In the case of this post you could
have deleted everything except a few lines where I mentioned you
could sort by date. It is doing what the script told it to, but
by the month because that is what came first. If you were to
switch it around to say year, month, day then it would sort the
way you would want it.
The NoteTab and Html List...
- martha hambrick harrell <mharrel-@...> wrote:
> The bride's list worked great! Thanks!
> > Your page located at......
> > http://www.rootsweb.com/~arprairi/Marriages/OrigMarr.htm
As this is unasked for opionion IM(!H)O, take it or leave it as you see
fit. Here's a few pieces of my mind (ew!) on this whole thread and the
subject that started it:
1) This page looks good! I find geneological data to be very
interesting and a valuable resource (when one can find the right
2) This page loads *very* slowly. Several obvious reasons would be
a) It is *huge*. But you knew that; it's the nature of this data,
b) My connection, which is through a *56k* modem at home, only
about 31.2 kbps (how fast is every one else?), and
c) Neither NNN nor IE will render this table as written until it
I would suggest the following solutions
a) Divide the table. Each piece can be cut and pasted into a new
along with the original header and footer from the parent page.
b) Actually you can't make *my* connection faster, but maybe you
find a faster server, though. I would guess that this is
of the question.
c) I seem to recall certain advice I was given about table tags
one could specify the number of columns and rows early and
least *partial* loading as the user waits. I can't seem to
it now (but I would like to see a response on this from the
Are you in the habit of acting on third-hand fuzzy advice?
3) Being able to sort before upload is a good thing. It allows for more
creativity by the designer, but sometime the user just plain wants
something else! Why not make your whole table sortable by the user?
<http://builder.cnet.com/Programming/Scripter/112999> for a great
explanation of this powerful method. If you have been programming
than a week, you will probably understand this otherwise
procedure. <OT> The integration of this code in my clipbook is on my
500-item to do list. (So far I 've completed *one* this decade ;^)
4) The more those around me converse with humility, the less useful
gets doled out, so I tend to *try* and write directly and with
I hope this above is helpful and unoffensive. BTW, would you please
the original article to the parts you directly addressing? Please see
note 2b above about my *slooow* connection.
- Hi Charles,
> c) I seem to recall certain advice I was given about table tagsI think this is different than what you are saying, but Mark
> whereby one could specify the number of columns and rows early
> and allow at least *partial* loading as the user waits. I can't
> seem to reference it now (but I would like to see a response on
> this from the group).
Pulvar does not add the ending tags until the end of the table
and says that tables load faster like that. It will fail
validation tests of course and some people just like to have
everything "per the book" so if that is the case, then this
suggestion does no good. I do remember the thread though you are
speaking of and I might have it. If so, I will post it
The NoteTab and Html List...
- "charles a. brannon" <cabranno-@...> wrote:
> martha hambrick harrell <mharrel-@...> wrote:...
> original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/ntb-html/?start=332
> > Jody,
> > The bride's list worked great! Thanks!
<apparently random-line-noise deleted>
Stop me if you have heard this one before.
Delete this if your not interested in a personal testimonial.
This may sound wierd to those who cut their PC teeth on brain-dead word
processors and other software that "does it all", but I for one prefer
a text editor because it allows me to produce the kind of monstrosity
that you see in my previous message. I know it looks ugly, but *now* I
know to hard-wrap at 70 chars instead of 80. (who knew?) I thought I
was being pretty slick by doing the hand formatting, and I would still
say as much is eGroups did not filter (alter) the messages that go
through its system. The point was to get the message across, not to
impress anybody, so I must grudgingly accept that this was *my* fault
and not eGroups for not just letting the word-wrap features of NoteTab
and eGroups do their respective things. Oh, well. If you are interested
in my overlong message about Martha's site and improving tables, I will
send it to anybody who wants it, with soft wraps on, of course.
personal responses to: cabrannon AT soon DOT com