Problem with fixing Table cell height

[rf]

tags?


Either that or <where else could I have a browser installed? Your
place?>and</where else could I have a browser installed? Your place?>

It is to laugh, is it not?

You just don't get it, do you?

Those tables you have so carefully constructed will make your site very hard
to use on something like a pda or a telephone (*). A site constructed with
the correct CSS would, and should work quite admirably on these devices.

"it works on my computer" is just not good enough in this century, unless
you are selling 800x600 computer screens. Gone are the days when everybody
used something that looked quite similar to "your computer", hence my
allusion to the uninformed masses who have been sucked into using AOL.

(*) I may be sitting in a first class airport lounge right now enjoying a
quiet beer and looking at web sites with my telephone, looking for something
I might want to buy a dreadfull lot of. I hit your site. I can't use it. I
move on to the next site, the one I can read easily, the one that was
designed to be viewed on anything.

Cheers
Richard.

 

[quietman]

You just don't get it, do you?

You wouldn't be the first to point that out. So I trust you are not looking
for an argument?

Those tables you have so carefully constructed will make your site very hard
to use on something like a pda or a telephone (*). A site constructed with
the correct CSS would, and should work quite admirably on these devices.

Good and fair point. It SHOULD work, shouldn't it. So how the hell do you
tell? However, in this case, I don't care.

"it works on my computer" is just not good enough in this century, unless
you are selling 800x600 computer screens.

Show me where I said that. You can't because I didn't say it. What I said
was it works on the 4 browsers I have installed on my computer. I may be a
pedant, however, the site is perfectly compatible with 4 major browsers
making it very cross browser compatible and therefore perfectly useable by
the VAST majority of Internet users.

Gone are the days when everybody

used something that looked quite similar to "your computer", hence my
allusion to the uninformed masses who have been sucked into using AOL.

Fools and their money are easily parted. Has been and always will be the
case.

(*) I may be sitting in a first class airport lounge right now enjoying a
quiet beer and looking at web sites with my telephone, looking for something
I might want to buy a dreadfull lot of.

That's drawing a long bow, but I suppose some wankers do just that. I
wouldn't know. No offence.

I hit your site. I can't use it. I

move on to the next site, the one I can read easily, the one that was
designed to be viewed on anything.

That is a worse case scenario. However, I would be interested in knowing the
percentage of people that use these devises on a regular basis to carry out
their regular business. I suspect it is very, very small. ALL the retailers
I have dealing with, do not. You average retailer/reseller does all his
business from their premises, during business hours, on a desktop
PC/Notebook

Cheers
Richard.

And thanks for your input. Duely noted.

 

[Jake]

Can this help you?

<table width="100%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" ><tbody style=" text-indent: -10pt; text-align: left;">
<tr><td>....

adjust tbody style to your likings

 

[Big Bill]

Please do not give any more advice on usenet (or anywhere else) regarding
HTML

-Karl

It's better than any advice I've seen you give, All you seem to do is
try to elevate yourself above other people. People come here looking
for help and you're nasty to them. If any attitude is both unwelcome
and uneccessary on this or any group, it's yours.

BB

 

[Big Bill]

Semantics. One goes hand in hand with the other in my book. Look at the
undertones of the majority of his posts. Perhaps 'a pompous ass' would have
been more fitting? Regardless of his intentions, last I looked, common
curtesy cost nothing.


Indeed and a very quick 'hack' of the solution, but served the purpose for
which it was intended. My situation was very much more involved and
contained more data, images, javascript and mouseover images. The 'solution'
worked perfectly. 'Code' as you call it, is perfectly interpreted by the 4
browsers installed on my PC.

Cheers.

And weren't tables originally themselves a hack to get round the
inadequacies of html? Nowt wrong with a little hacking. Pedants should
stick to their pedanting.

BB

 

[rf]

You wouldn't be the first to point that out. So I trust you are not looking
for an argument?

Nope. Not looking for an argument. Just trying to convince you that
a) your table base layout is not appropriate these days and
b) you do not seem to in the know about (AFAICT) usability/accessibility.

Good and fair point. It SHOULD work, shouldn't it. So how the hell do you
tell? However, in this case, I don't care.

You ask somebody here or over at alt.html.critique. Many of us have these
devices.

At the very lease, a fully fluid design will be a very good start.

If you don't care then that implies that you don't care about a certain
percentage of your buisness revinue.

Show me where I said that. You can't because I didn't say it. What I said
was it works on the 4 browsers I have installed on my computer.

Where in the above do you say anything about how it will work on *my*
internet viewing device. You said you have 4 browsers, on your computer, and
that your page works there. That is exactly the same as saying "it works on
my computer" IMHO.

I may be a
pedant, however, the site is perfectly compatible with 4 major browsers
making it very cross browser compatible and therefore perfectly useable by
the VAST majority of Internet users.

4 browsers? Do you think that is all the browsers out there? I would wager
an order of magnitude or more. Maybe two.

What about all the aural browsers. A lot of executives, who may just be in
the market to buy a dreadfull lot of stuff, might listen to one as they are
driving to the corporate offices. Of course the blind use them all the time.
Don't you sell stuff to blind people?

What about text only browsers.

What about browsers that output onto a braille reader?

What about telephones, each with their own hand crafter browser?

Gone are the days when everybody

Fools and their money are easily parted. Has been and always will be the
case.

I do not understand this bit a all. Your point?

That's drawing a long bow, but I suppose some wankers do just that. I
wouldn't know. No offence.

Yes. We "wankers" do. I do. Often. There is not a lot else to do in an
airport lounge, except enjoy the beer. And, yes, I have often done quite a
bit of business in an airport lounge. In any case, no offence taken.

But think, this "wanker" is, for example, the CEO of a major advertising
concern that is on the lookout for some shirts to buy (that you
hyperthetically sell) to give away at the Athens Olympic Games. A couple of
hundred thousand of them, and yes, people like Sony do that all the time.
Your table bases site just missed the sale.

The bloke in the internet cafe that comes across your site using a standard
"my computer" is only looking for one shirt.

I hit your site. I can't use it. I

That is a worse case scenario. However, I would be interested in knowing the
percentage of people that use these devises on a regular basis to carry out
their regular business. I suspect it is very, very small. ALL the retailers
I have dealing with, do not. You average retailer/reseller does all his
business from their premises, during business hours, on a desktop
PC/Notebook

How many people out there wear puce shoes with teal spats on them? Not a
lot. However, if you owned a shoe shop would you refuse entry to such a
person?

Remember, in sales (and since you are continuing this particular argument I
assume your site is aimed a selling something) every sale counts. *Every*
sale. Your accountant will tell you that.

Cheers
Richard.

 

[Matt Clara]

The solution is to stop creating the problem.
First and foremost is the fact that you're using tables for layout.
Second is that you're attempting to fix a cell's size.
Third is that you're saying something is a "problem" when the table cells
are doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing.

-Karl

Gee, you're so helpful to newbies, I'll just slip you into my kill file
right now and save me the boredome of your struggle to make yourself feel
superior.

 

[Big Bill]

Nope. Not looking for an argument. Just trying to convince you that
a) your table base layout is not appropriate these days and
b) you do not seem to in the know about (AFAICT) usability/accessibility.


You ask somebody here or over at alt.html.critique. Many of us have these
devices.

At the very lease, a fully fluid design will be a very good start.

If you don't care then that implies that you don't care about a certain
percentage of your buisness revinue.


Where in the above do you say anything about how it will work on *my*
internet viewing device. You said you have 4 browsers, on your computer, and
that your page works there. That is exactly the same as saying "it works on
my computer" IMHO.


4 browsers? Do you think that is all the browsers out there? I would wager
an order of magnitude or more. Maybe two.

What about all the aural browsers. A lot of executives, who may just be in
the market to buy a dreadfull lot of stuff, might listen to one as they are
driving to the corporate offices. Of course the blind use them all the time.
Don't you sell stuff to blind people?

What about text only browsers.

What about browsers that output onto a braille reader?

What about telephones, each with their own hand crafter browser?

Um, isn't that what XHTML is for? So filtered though an appropriate
style sheet a site can be seen on anything? How come you're not
mentioning it? And that it includes tables?

BB

 

[Steve Pugh]

Um, isn't that what XHTML is for? So filtered though an appropriate
style sheet a site can be seen on anything? How come you're not
mentioning it? And that it includes tables?

Three lines of original text in a 130 line message? Have you never
heard of trimming?

Anyway, you seem to be confusing two different strategies here.

First, you can have a master document (often in some form of XML) that
is then transformed into served documents via the user of stylesheets
on the server. (The S in XSLT stands for Stylesheet.) The served
documents would be (X)HTML+CSS for most platforms but could be other
formats as well. The transformation can either be done once per update
and then uploaded to the server, or can be done on request, depending
on the nature of the data.

Secondly you can have a single (X)HTML document with various <link
rel="stylesheet" media="X"> elements linking to different stylesheets
for different media.

The first strategy is more useful when you want to send change the
content sent to different platforms, if you're using it just to change
the cosmetic aspects of your page then you're probably making a
mistake. The second strategy works well so long as the basic document
is well structured and fundamentally accessible - using valid (X)HTML
with good semantics is a foundation of such a document.

In neither case is XHTML needed, HTML serves the same function just as
well. And that fact that (X)HTML contains tables is irrelevant. Tables
are still needed for marking up tabular data, but that doesn't give
authors carte blanche to use them for everything else as well. As soon
as you start using complex, nested tables - as the OP was advised
against but seems determined to continue doing - then the chances of
them breaking when viewed away from the traditional desktop setup
increases.

Steve

 

[Big Bill]

Three lines of original text in a 130 line message? Have you never
heard of trimming?

Anyway, you seem to be confusing two different strategies here.

First, you can have a master document (often in some form of XML) that
is then transformed into served documents via the user of stylesheets
on the server.

This I've done, but years ago and only for IE. Mind you, there wasn't
a lot else could see xml in those days. Amaya, I suppose. Netscape
tried later but went server-side.

(The S in XSLT stands for Stylesheet.) The served
documents would be (X)HTML+CSS for most platforms but could be other
formats as well. The transformation can either be done once per update
and then uploaded to the server, or can be done on request, depending
on the nature of the data.

Secondly you can have a single (X)HTML document with various <link
rel="stylesheet" media="X"> elements linking to different stylesheets
for different media.

The first strategy is more useful when you want to send change the
content sent to different platforms, if you're using it just to change
the cosmetic aspects of your page then you're probably making a
mistake. The second strategy works well so long as the basic document
is well structured and fundamentally accessible - using valid (X)HTML
with good semantics is a foundation of such a document.

In neither case is XHTML needed, HTML serves the same function just as
well. And that fact that (X)HTML contains tables is irrelevant. Tables
are still needed for marking up tabular data, but that doesn't give
authors carte blanche to use them for everything else as well. As soon
as you start using complex, nested tables - as the OP was advised
against but seems determined to continue doing - then the chances of
them breaking when viewed away from the traditional desktop setup
increases.

OK. Thanks.

BB

 

[Steve Pugh]

This bit pass you by?

This I've done, but years ago and only for IE.

Huh? If it was only for IE then why did you need multiple versions?

Mind you, there wasn't a lot else could see xml in those days.

But the browser wasn't seeing the XML. The server, or a parser on your
desktop, was and that created the (X)HTML versions that you sent to
the separate platforms. Sending raw XML out to general user agents is
a long way from a good idea.

Steve

 

[rf]

Um, isn't that what XHTML is for? So filtered though an appropriate
style sheet a site can be seen on anything? How come you're not
mentioning it? And that it includes tables?

The OP asked about table cell heights, which is pre HTML 101 stuff. He then
"found" a solution involving nested tables, a bad thing. Do you really think
having a server serve up content with different style sheets is a viable
proposition at this stage?

Besides, how do you "style" a table driven layout so it fits on a telephone?
Do you linearise the table? If so, how?

BTW XHTML has nothing to do with this.

Cheers
Richard.

 

[Big Bill]

This bit pass you by?

I'm from MFW occasionally.

Huh? If it was only for IE then why did you need multiple versions?

That was the point I was trying to make there. I never did it in
practice as the concept of using style sheets so that XML pages could
be seen in more than just browsers existed, but in practice, they
weren't around.

But the browser wasn't seeing the XML. The server, or a parser on your
desktop, was and that created the (X)HTML versions that you sent to
the separate platforms. Sending raw XML out to general user agents is
a long way from a good idea.

We never sent them to separate platforms! There weren't any! But I
know what you mean, just didn't express myself well I suppose.

BB