Vertical spacing in cells

[Robert]

in a table cell (which contains the whole the right side menu /
context bar of a page) I want to put one element/section/paragraph
aligned on the bottom of that cell, while all the rest shall is
flowing from the top of the cell.
What is a good method for that? some infinite, automatic vspacer
or so?

I'm only aware of possibly realizing the neighbor cells of the
outer table with rowspan=2 and thus maybe haven 2 cells for that
right bar area. the lower one with valign=bottom. But that seems
complicated and odd...


Robert

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

in a table cell (which contains the whole the right side menu /
context bar of a page)

(gets popcorn... waits...)

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

(gets popcorn... waits...)

Too subtle, you may be eating a lot of popcorn.

 

[dorayme]

in a table cell (which contains the whole the right side menu /
context bar of a page) I want to put one element/section/paragraph
aligned on the bottom of that cell, while all the rest shall is
flowing from the top of the cell.
What is a good method for that? some infinite, automatic vspacer
or so?

I'm only aware of possibly realizing the neighbor cells of the
outer table with rowspan=2 and thus maybe haven 2 cells for that
right bar area. the lower one with valign=bottom. But that seems
complicated and odd...

If you are going to use tables for layout, it would be odd not to
have the stomach for the perfectly normal uncomplicated use of
rowspan.

 

[Bob]

If you are going to use tables for layout, it would be odd not to
have the stomach for the perfectly normal uncomplicated use of
rowspan.

Embedding a further borderless 2-row 1-column table inside this cell
would be easier since it would avoid the "complication" of having to
apply the rowspan=2 to all the other content outside of this cell.

 

[dorayme]

Embedding a further borderless 2-row 1-column table inside this cell
would be easier since it would avoid the "complication" of having to
apply the rowspan=2 to all the other content outside of this cell.

Why is applying a simple rowspan more complicated than "embedding
yet another table"? It is more complex markup for a start: more
elements (another TABLE, TR, TD...). What is driving you to say
these things? Is there a little something or three that you are
not telling us? How about a URL of your best shot that shows what
realistic thing you are trying to do on the page in question?

 

[Bob]

Why is applying a simple rowspan more complicated than "embedding
yet another table"? It is more complex markup for a start: more
elements (another TABLE, TR, TD...). What is driving you to say
these things? Is there a little something or three that you are
not telling us? How about a URL of your best shot that shows what
realistic thing you are trying to do on the page in question?

Calm down.

Having the additional table within the cell in question means that the
changes needed to achieve what the OP desires is self-contained within
that very cell. Having to rowspan everything else is going to be higher
maintenance.

 

[dorayme]

Calm down.

Having the additional table within the cell in question means that the
changes needed to achieve what the OP desires is self-contained within
that very cell. Having to rowspan everything else is going to be higher
maintenance.

What *else* is there to rowspan? There are things you are not
telling us then, so maybe you should be less calm and spill the
whole beans! <g>

 

[Robert]

Calm down.

Having the additional table within the cell in question means that the
changes needed to achieve what the OP desires is self-contained within
that very cell. Having to rowspan everything else is going to be higher
maintenance.

that'd be true: a local solution. I tried this, but didn't get
that embedded 2-row table in that cell to vertically expand to the
cell height. how to?

Robert

 

[dorayme]

Having the additional table within the cell in question means that the
changes needed to achieve what the OP desires is self-contained within
that very cell. Having to rowspan everything else is going to be higher
maintenance.

that'd be true: a local solution. I tried this, but didn't get
that embedded 2-row table in that cell to vertically expand to the
cell height. how to?
[/QUOTE]
After you finish dribbling bits of information here, someone will
come along and give you a hand. Give a URL of this last attempt
of yours (don't bother with the far simpler mere rowspan, that is
for some reason that still remains obscure, unacceptable to you.)

 

[Robert]

If you are going to use tables for layout, it would be odd not to

how can make this vertical positionion "at the right bottom of a
certain area" with other means than tables? a simple example?

have the stomach for the perfectly normal uncomplicated use of
rowspan.

(the other cells need all to have correct spans - I often ended in
ill tables when doing so. and just for the purpose of this need of
local positioning of an element which has nothing to do with the
greater table layout ..-.)

Robert

 

[dorayme]

how can make this vertical positionion "at the right bottom of a
certain area" with other means than tables? a simple example?

Why should we go down that road when I have not a clue what you
are really doing. I am not complaining about your use of tables.
Go ahead and use tables. But you seem unwilling to give a URL
that gives an idea of what you want, and you reject rowspan for
some obscure reason.

 

[Robert]

Why should we go down that road when I have not a clue what you
are really doing. I am not complaining about your use of tables.
Go ahead and use tables. But you seem unwilling to give a URL
that gives an idea of what you want, and you reject rowspan for
some obscure reason.

see not other solution than rowspan. didn't the that embedded
table to extend to full vertical extent.

a google keyword hint or so regarding the other option(s) would be
enough. typically I find way upon that. no big road necessary.


Robert

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

see not other solution than rowspan. didn't the that embedded table to
extend to full vertical extent.

Glad *you* can see it.

Can't understand why folks ask questions, but will refuse to supply a
URL to what they are trying that fails, then dismiss all suggestions,
and then still will refuse to supply more information, then will
announce that they know the *only* solution which is known to be
patently false by we who actually *know* that we are doing...whew!

BTW to OP your really should update your SeaMonkey, 1.1.5 is ancient,
numerous enhancements and security patched have been apply to current 2.0.2

 

[Roy A.]

BTW to OP your really should update your SeaMonkey, 1.1.5 is ancient,
numerous enhancements and security patched have been apply to current 2.0.2

When you test your web design I think you should not use the latest
version of a browser. SeaMonkey might be better than Firefox, but we
all know it's the same rendering engine.

We all need a browser to use in regular life. Well, if you need a
"working horse" that nobody cares about, SeaMonkey might be the
choice.

But if you're using SeaMonkey as your "working horse" you should not
use the lates version of Firefox. I mean you should also test for
previous versions of that rendering engine.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

When you test your web design I think you should not use the latest
version of a browser. SeaMonkey might be better than Firefox, but we
all know it's the same rendering engine.

Ooookay, but what does that have to do with what I said? I was not
talking about testing, I have NN4.61 for testing (I don't really bother
any more, but never bother to uninstall) but I don't USE it for
browsing|posting.

SeaMonkey vs Firefox. Again this was not my point. Only his version is
ancient, and there have been numerous security patches. You chould keep
your browser up to date for security reasons. Unlike the
OS-component-posing-as-a-web-browser, SeaMonkey is not tied to the OS
and unless he is still running Win95 he can update.

We all need a browser to use in regular life. Well, if you need a
"working horse" that nobody cares about, SeaMonkey might be the
choice.

Huh? SeaMonkey happens to be my default browser. I just happen to like
the "suite" over the standalones...

But if you're using SeaMonkey as your "working horse" you should not
use the lates version of Firefox. I mean you should also test for
previous versions of that rendering engine.

Firstly SeaMonkey lags Firefox. Mozilla doesn't support SeaMonkey
anymore an independent team took up the role after Mozilla wanted to
focus on Firefox|Thunderbird route. SeaMonkey team must wait for Firefox
folks before they can incorporate them into SeaMonkey. Firefox 3.x has
been out for some time now and it is only recently that SeaMonkey went
from 1.1.18 (Firefox 2.x engine) to 2.x (Firefox 3.x engine). But again,
what does this have to do with what I wrote, I wasn't talking about
testing.

 

[Roy A.]

Ooookay, but what does that have to do with what I said? I was not
talking about testing, I have NN4.61 for testing (I don't really bother
any more, but never bother to uninstall) but I don't USE it for
browsing|posting.

SeaMonkey vs Firefox. Again this was not my point. Only his version is
ancient, and there have been numerous security patches.  You chould keep
your browser up to date for security reasons. Unlike the
OS-component-posing-as-a-web-browser, SeaMonkey is not tied to the OS
and unless he is still running Win95 he can update.




Huh? SeaMonkey happens to be my default browser. I just happen to like
the "suite" over the standalones...




Firstly SeaMonkey lags Firefox. Mozilla doesn't support SeaMonkey
anymore an independent team took up the role after Mozilla wanted to
focus on Firefox|Thunderbird route. SeaMonkey team must wait for Firefox
folks before they can incorporate them into SeaMonkey. Firefox 3.x has
been out for some time now and it is only recently that SeaMonkey went
from 1.1.18 (Firefox 2.x engine) to 2.x (Firefox 3.x engine). But again,
what does this have to do with what I wrote, I wasn't talking about
testing.

If you have to use SeaMonkey, well do it! But you should realize that
Firefox and SeaMonkey (particularly) is Netscape Navigator in
disguise.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

If you have to use SeaMonkey, well do it! But you should realize that
Firefox and SeaMonkey (particularly) is Netscape Navigator in
disguise.

What? There is no Netscape Navigator anymore. AOL finally dropped it.

http://browser.netscape.com/history

Anyway Firefox|SeaMonkey by Mozilla split company from Netscape when AOL
took over. Yes all based on Gecko, but not sure what is your point. My
point is that the OP should update what he was using for among other
things security reasons. My SeaMonkey 2.0.2 is not the same codebase as
the last Navigator NN9.x which is based on older engine using in SM1.x
and FF2.x

 

[dorayme]

<[email protected]

,

If you have to use SeaMonkey, well do it! But you should realize that
Firefox and SeaMonkey (particularly) is Netscape Navigator in
disguise.

I saw SeaMonkey (dressed as a fireman) trying to sneak in to this
building the other day. "Hello, hello, hello", I ses to it, "Wot
'ave we 'ere. 'Ave we a littl' monkey?"

 

[dorayme]

see not other solution than rowspan. didn't the that embedded
table to extend to full vertical extent.

a google keyword hint or so regarding the other option(s) would be
enough. typically I find way upon that. no big road necessary.

Not quite sure what you want. In case you are unsure how to do
rowspan:

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/alt/rowspanForBob.html>