Re: [NH] changing the width of a table
- Axel Berger wrote:
>loro wrote:You didn't read my whole post, I think. Here are the sentence you
> > Not if it is a TABLE, which is what we were talking about.
>Especially when it's a table. This is a typical example:
><IMG SRC="some.png" BORDER="0"
>This is a caption. I make it long with unnecessary and superfluous
>blurb, so that, without wrapping, it would get much wider than the
>100 px is smaller than the width of the smallest image I tend to
>use. Without the WIDTH attribute that table will be pulled as wide
>as the wrapper allows it, with it it will be limited to the width of
>the image. This gets especially important if I flow text around it.
quote and the one before it with emphasis added
>>>It won't get smaller than that ***(when there's nowhere the linesThere's no text in Mike's table that can wrap. Mike's table is what
>>>can wrap)***. So specifying an impossibly small width doesn't do
>>>anything at all.
we are dealing with, or so I thought.
- I'm new here, Marcelo, but maybe this article will help:
This is a fairly common technique in building CSS-styled menus,
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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