- ... Yes. It s the opposite to a DIV and other normal block level elements in that respect. A DIV (that s not positioned absolute or floated) always spans allMessage 1 of 34 , Sep 10, 2008View SourceMike Breiding wrote:
>Right you are! It takes me a while...Yes. It's the opposite to a DIV and other "normal" block level
>But, I finally see what you mean.
>The table resizes to fit the content.
elements in that respect. A DIV (that's not positioned absolute or
floated) always spans all available width if it doesn't have an
explicit width. So giving a DIV width="100%" is as unnecessary as
trying to specify the smallest possible width for a table.
>Where I was having problem was width the specifies width of the <td> forDid work with them in too, at least in IE and FF, even if they didn't
>the days of the week.
>Thanks to Axel for pointing out that.
>Once I got rid of that then it shrunk to fit - as you said.
add up. Using a width for TD can be useful if the content of the
cells have different widths, but you want all rows to have the same width.
- I m new here, Marcelo, but maybe this article will help: http://www.wellstyled.com/css-nopreload-rollovers.html This is a fairly common technique in buildingMessage 34 of 34 , Oct 13, 2008View SourceI'm new here, Marcelo, but maybe this article will help:
This is a fairly common technique in building CSS-styled menus,
--- In email@example.com, Marcelo de Castro Bastos
> Interviewed by CNN on 14/9/2008 15:16, Axel Berger told the world:
> > Marcelo de Castro Bastos wrote:
> >> can I "crop" it in HTML/CSS in order to display just a smaller
> >> rectangle inside it
> > I'm not more than 98 % sure, but as far as I know it isn't.
> > But if it were possible you shouldn't do it. The whole image needs
> > to be downloaded anyway. This would be similar do scaling down in
> > HTML - I've seen 100 by 50 thumbnails that take ages to display.
> I fully understand the issue, and it was more of an intellectual
> curiosity... it's not actually for a production site, I was just
> wondering if I could pull it off without firing up an image editor.
> In this particular case, the whole image would have to be loaded anyway
> -- it is a comic-book-like page, and I wanted to "move around" the
> individual panels to add text comments besides each one. From the
> understand web browsers work, they wouldn't download the image 6 times.picture).
> And this way, there would be the extra bonus of preserving the full
> image (avoiding the need for a separate download to get the full
> I'll have to look into John Zeman's iframe solution and Cary Driscoll's
> CSS solution to see if they are applicable to this particular situation.
> The idea occurred to me after I recently read the specs for the
> "border-image" CSS3 feature -- it works by taking parts of a image file
> to draw borders. I thought that there might be a more general way to
> partial images, and wanted to try to figure it out...
> Now...witness the power of this *FULLY ARMED AND OPERATIONAL* Tagline!
> * TagZilla 0.066 on Seamonkey 1.1.11