Scrollable Table with Fixed Headers

R

rf

Mel Smith said:
rf said:

div#headerrow {
position: absolute;
top: 195px;
width: 820px;
height: 50px;
left: 49%; /* I require this but don't know why ?? */
padding: 2px;
margin: 0 0 0 -415px;
overflow: auto;
}

Why are you using absolute?

Why are you positioning it half way across the viewport and then supplying a
hugely negative margin to put it back somewhere on the left. Is this some
attempt to "centre" the object?

And, if I envisage this correctly, at a viewport size of anything less than
830 pixels the left hand side of this will disappear out of the left side of
the viewport, never to be scrolled to again.

Please provide a URL of your page. I need to see this in action.
 
M

Mel Smith

rf said:
Why are you using absolute?

This is 'absolute' with reference to the 'relative' container <div>
(advice from my 'Beginning CSS for Web Design 2nd edition by Richard York
published in 2007)
Why are you positioning it half way across the viewport and then supplying
a hugely negative margin to put it back somewhere on the left. Is this
some attempt to "centre" the object?

Yes (humbly) ...

And, if I envisage this correctly, at a viewport size of anything less
than 830 pixels the left hand side of this will disappear out of the left
side of the viewport, never to be scrolled to again.

Yup -- it disappears. But you can scroll all you want on the right side
but you can't see the left side for ever and ever ...
Please provide a URL of your page. I need to see this in action.

Let me screw up my newbie courage over the next few days.

-Mel
 
M

Mel Smith

Hi rf (and Adrienne):
Let me screw up my newbie courage over the next few days.

btw, here is a bit more iof the buckets of css that are involved:

table#fixedheader {
width: 790px;
table-layout: fixed;
}

/* I forgot to duplicate the above css for the t1 table and will try it
tomorrow, and determine if there's any difference */

While I get ready provide the url, here's the relevant portion in the <body>
of the page:

*******************************************

<div id="headerrow">
<table id="fixedheader">
<thead>
<tr>
<th align="center" width="8%" ><u>Org ID</u></th>
<th align="center" width="40%"><u>Org Name</u></th> <!-- would
like to click/sort this column -->
<th align="center" width="25%"><u>Municipality</u></th>
<th align="center" width="5%" ><u>Rgn</u></th>
<th align="center" width="22%"><u>Notable Postings</u></th>
</tr>
</thead>
</table>
</div>
<div id="tableselect">
<table id="t1">
<tfoot>
<tr>
<td align="center" width="8%" ><u>Org ID</u></td>
<td align="center" width="40%"><u>Org Name</u></td>
<td align="center" width="25%"><u>Municipality</u></td>
<td align="center" width="5%" ><u>Rgn</u></td>
<th align="center" width="22%"><u>Notable Postings</u></th>
</tr>
</tfoot>
<tbody>
<!-- My cgi server (Apache on an older Dell machine on the desk
beside me) builds the many rows, and replaces the variable #forgoptions#
below with (up to) thousands of <tr> rows. Then send the page onward to the
user -->
#forgoptions#
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
**************************************************************

Also, I'm working hard on cleaning up the database now. It currently
has 21000+ rows, and I have to cut this back a bit.

It would be unusual (but possible) for my users to request the 20,000
rows by selection from ALL Regions. I would expect the loading time on their
machines to be as slow as my tests have shown --- e.g., about 2 1/2 minutes
for loading. So, Region requests should normally be less than 2000 rows..

-Mel Smith
 
R

rf

Mel Smith said:
Dorayme & rf:

Going golfing and drinking today.

I fail to see the relevance of golf.

One starts at a golf clubhouse proshop and then one proceeds to walk for
bloody kilometres up and down the countryside with a bunch of very expensive
and heavy sticks, hitting little white balls into creeks, dams, purposely
build little oval shaped beaches and the surrounding scrub and neighbouring
properties, meanwhile being bitten by sundry ants, bees, wasps mosquitos and
the occasional lizard lurking in the creek.

Why not simply start at the golf clubhouse proshop and proceed directly to
the bar for a quiet one and a plate or wedgies.? Drinking I can understand.
 
R

Robert Thomason

I fail to see the relevance of golf.

One starts at a golf clubhouse proshop and then one proceeds to walk for
bloody kilometres up and down the countryside with a bunch of very expensive
and heavy sticks, hitting little white balls into creeks, dams, purposely
build little oval shaped beaches and the surrounding scrub and neighbouring
properties, meanwhile being bitten by sundry ants, bees, wasps mosquitos and
the occasional lizard lurking in the creek.

Why not simply start at the golf clubhouse proshop and proceed directly to
the bar for a quiet one and a plate or wedgies.? Drinking I can understand.

Amen to that! My boss has spent over $500 in the past two weeks on just
*two* new golf clubs. That's too expensive a hobby for me.
 
D

dorayme

"rf said:
I fail to see the relevance of golf.

One starts at a golf clubhouse proshop and then one proceeds to walk for
bloody kilometres up and down

Except that these days most seem to use those electric buggies to
get about - rather spoiling the useful exercise component of the
sport. Still, there are the usual satisfactions of games, and now
and then quite unexpected pain and pleasure:

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/jokes/golfingAgony.html>
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,994
Messages
2,570,223
Members
46,813
Latest member
lawrwtwinkle111

Latest Threads

Top