pelegk1
05-19-2003, 01:28 AM
does div work only inside <td> :
<tr>
<td>
<div id="myDiv">
</div>
</td>
</tr>
or can it effect <tr> too?table?
<tr>
<td>
<div id="myDiv">
</div>
</td>
</tr>
or can it effect <tr> too?table?
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : about div
AdamGundry
05-19-2003, 01:47 AM
Divs work just about anywhere, inside or outside of tables. Alternatively, you can give the table tags an ID or class themselves.
Adam
Adam
gil davis
05-19-2003, 07:43 AM
Technically the only thing that you can nest inside a <TR> is a <TD> or a <TH>. Also, the only things you can nest inside a <TABLE> are <TBODY>, <CAPTION> and <TR>. Anything else breaks the W3C reccommendations, and shouldn't validate.
Keep your DIV inside the <TD> or <TH>. If you use <DIV> to style things, apply the styles to the <TR> instead, as Adam said. This will cause all the enclosed <TD> and <TH> tags to inherit (although this is broken in NN 4).
Keep your DIV inside the <TD> or <TH>. If you use <DIV> to style things, apply the styles to the <TR> instead, as Adam said. This will cause all the enclosed <TD> and <TH> tags to inherit (although this is broken in NN 4).
khaki
05-19-2003, 08:40 AM
hi Gil...
i don't mean to piggy-back onto pelegk1's thread, but i was hoping that i could get a clarification on what you just posted:
so...
<td><div id="foo">...</div></td>
and
<tr class="foo">....
is correct?
and this:
<td class="foo">...
is not???
what if i have multiple <td> tags all within the same row that need to have different styles?
how would i handle that?
these CSS rules can be a bit confusing at times :rolleyes:
also...
can <form> be nested inside <table>?
such as:
<table>
<form>
<tr><td>...</td></tr>
</form>
</table>
...or do i need to re-teach myself what i thought i already knew (again!!! :rolleyes: )?
already i have experienced the inability to assign a "height" attribute (and stay valid) and now there are further limitations???
do you know of any sites/examples of fully formatted tables (height, width, font, background, etc) that are also fully valid?
i think that it would really benefit a lot of people if they could see a table (and all of it's elements) with examples of how to correctly format and control every aspect of it.
any idea where a living and breathing example might be found (and p-l-e-a-s-e don't refer me to W3... unless they actually have an example - and not just a lot of confusing dis-jointed text)?
thanks... as always....
;) k
i don't mean to piggy-back onto pelegk1's thread, but i was hoping that i could get a clarification on what you just posted:
so...
<td><div id="foo">...</div></td>
and
<tr class="foo">....
is correct?
and this:
<td class="foo">...
is not???
what if i have multiple <td> tags all within the same row that need to have different styles?
how would i handle that?
these CSS rules can be a bit confusing at times :rolleyes:
also...
can <form> be nested inside <table>?
such as:
<table>
<form>
<tr><td>...</td></tr>
</form>
</table>
...or do i need to re-teach myself what i thought i already knew (again!!! :rolleyes: )?
already i have experienced the inability to assign a "height" attribute (and stay valid) and now there are further limitations???
do you know of any sites/examples of fully formatted tables (height, width, font, background, etc) that are also fully valid?
i think that it would really benefit a lot of people if they could see a table (and all of it's elements) with examples of how to correctly format and control every aspect of it.
any idea where a living and breathing example might be found (and p-l-e-a-s-e don't refer me to W3... unless they actually have an example - and not just a lot of confusing dis-jointed text)?
thanks... as always....
;) k
khalidali63
05-19-2003, 09:28 AM
There is noting illegal about
<td class="foo">
And this part of the code
<table>
<form>
<tr><td>...</td></tr>
</form>
</table>
seems to be problematic,since a table would not except a form tag at that place,in the <td> it should be ok...
<td class="foo">
And this part of the code
<table>
<form>
<tr><td>...</td></tr>
</form>
</table>
seems to be problematic,since a table would not except a form tag at that place,in the <td> it should be ok...
Charles
05-19-2003, 09:41 AM
The W3C is the source of all wisdom and knowlege for things relating to the web, and the answers to your questions, Khaki, can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/.
The TD element can take a 'class' attribute'. (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.6) In fact, the two are defined as a pair in the DTD so anything that you can say about the one applies to the other if you are talking about document structure.
The TABLE element cannot contain a FORM element (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.1) and never could (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32#table) but the FORM element can contain a TABLE (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#h-17.3). However, using a table for layout is a rather cruel trick to play on persons using non-graphical browsers and ough not to be done. (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.1)
And if the W3C isn't making sense it's because you need to unlearn everything that you think that you know and read the 4.01 Spec until it makes sense.
And you will not find the example that you seek because it cannot exist. You are not supposed to use tables for layout.
For an example of the proper use of a TABLE element see http://www.saintjohns.ang-md.org/calendar/.
The TD element can take a 'class' attribute'. (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.6) In fact, the two are defined as a pair in the DTD so anything that you can say about the one applies to the other if you are talking about document structure.
The TABLE element cannot contain a FORM element (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.1) and never could (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32#table) but the FORM element can contain a TABLE (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#h-17.3). However, using a table for layout is a rather cruel trick to play on persons using non-graphical browsers and ough not to be done. (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.1)
And if the W3C isn't making sense it's because you need to unlearn everything that you think that you know and read the 4.01 Spec until it makes sense.
And you will not find the example that you seek because it cannot exist. You are not supposed to use tables for layout.
For an example of the proper use of a TABLE element see http://www.saintjohns.ang-md.org/calendar/.
jeffmott
05-19-2003, 09:44 AM
so...
<td><div id="foo">...</div></td>
and
<tr class="foo">....
is correct?
and this:
<td class="foo">...
is not???They are all fine.also...
can <form> be nested inside <table>?
such as:
<table>
<form>
<tr><td>...</td></tr>
</form>
</table>No.<!ELEMENT TABLE - -
(CAPTION?, (COL*|COLGROUP*), THEAD?, TFOOT?, TBODY+)>What this "dis-jointed" text says is that the TABLE element may contain 0 or 1 CAPTION elements (the ? quantifies to 0 or 1, or in more english terms: may occur), 0 or more COL or 0 or more COLGROUP elements (the * quantifies 0 or more times), 0 or 1 THEAD elements, 0 or 1 TFOOT, and 1 or more TBODY elements (the + quantifies 1 or more). Now if we go look at the definition for TBODY...<!ELEMENT TBODY O O (TR)+ -- table body -->The two O's that are italicized indicate that the opening and closing tags for TBODY are optional (in the TABLE definition there are two hyphens indicating that the opening and closing TABLE tags are required). The TBODY tags being optional, in turn, transparently allows TR to be immediately contained within TABLE. So hopefully all that helps you to understand some of that dis-jointed text. As for the original question, you can hopefully see for yourself now that FORM is not allowed to be nested within TABLE since TBODY must contain 1 or more TR elements.
If you mean for a form to enclose an entire table then it should be outside the table tags. FORM is sometimes put inside as a hacked way of hiding its margins. Margins, however, is obviously a stylistic issue and thus should be handled with styles.<form style="margin: 0" action="">
<table>
<tr>
<td></td>
</tr>
</table>
</form>
<td><div id="foo">...</div></td>
and
<tr class="foo">....
is correct?
and this:
<td class="foo">...
is not???They are all fine.also...
can <form> be nested inside <table>?
such as:
<table>
<form>
<tr><td>...</td></tr>
</form>
</table>No.<!ELEMENT TABLE - -
(CAPTION?, (COL*|COLGROUP*), THEAD?, TFOOT?, TBODY+)>What this "dis-jointed" text says is that the TABLE element may contain 0 or 1 CAPTION elements (the ? quantifies to 0 or 1, or in more english terms: may occur), 0 or more COL or 0 or more COLGROUP elements (the * quantifies 0 or more times), 0 or 1 THEAD elements, 0 or 1 TFOOT, and 1 or more TBODY elements (the + quantifies 1 or more). Now if we go look at the definition for TBODY...<!ELEMENT TBODY O O (TR)+ -- table body -->The two O's that are italicized indicate that the opening and closing tags for TBODY are optional (in the TABLE definition there are two hyphens indicating that the opening and closing TABLE tags are required). The TBODY tags being optional, in turn, transparently allows TR to be immediately contained within TABLE. So hopefully all that helps you to understand some of that dis-jointed text. As for the original question, you can hopefully see for yourself now that FORM is not allowed to be nested within TABLE since TBODY must contain 1 or more TR elements.
If you mean for a form to enclose an entire table then it should be outside the table tags. FORM is sometimes put inside as a hacked way of hiding its margins. Margins, however, is obviously a stylistic issue and thus should be handled with styles.<form style="margin: 0" action="">
<table>
<tr>
<td></td>
</tr>
</table>
</form>
Charles
05-19-2003, 10:01 AM
And the 4.01 Spec explains how to read the DTD. (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/intro/sgmltut.html#h-3.3). The spec. is a great deal easier to read if you start at the beginning.
khaki
05-19-2003, 10:09 AM
oh crap
i'm not looking to play any "cruel tricks" on anyone
i'm just trying to learn and understand
whatever.
sometimes the type of "answers" to the questions here just suck the life and enjoyment out of even trying to learn
thanks for the responses.
maybe i'll try to read them and get an understanding for them after my headache and temper subsides.
one piece of advice though (and meant with total sincerity):
teaching can be done without using a hammer.
i'm open to learning....
but not having my head bashed-in.
thanks :rolleyes:
:( k
i'm not looking to play any "cruel tricks" on anyone
i'm just trying to learn and understand
whatever.
sometimes the type of "answers" to the questions here just suck the life and enjoyment out of even trying to learn
thanks for the responses.
maybe i'll try to read them and get an understanding for them after my headache and temper subsides.
one piece of advice though (and meant with total sincerity):
teaching can be done without using a hammer.
i'm open to learning....
but not having my head bashed-in.
thanks :rolleyes:
:( k
Charles
05-19-2003, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by khaki
[T]eaching can be done without using a hammer. That would depend upon the thickness of the skull. You're no newcomer to these boards. And you are, no doubt, aware of the countless times that I have quoted the HTML specification directing you to not use tables for layout and the countless times that I have explained the rationale for this and yet you persist in trying to find out the best way to violate this rule.
Not too long ago there was a discussion on these boards about the best way to learn HTML. I took the position that you need to learn the right ways from the start. The majority position, however, seemed to be that people should start out with any old thing and then over time learn the correct ways. The problem is that it while it easy to learn the right ways from the start, it is really hard to unlearn the wrong ways.
This stuff isn't rocket science, but it's not modern art either. The rules are easily learned but you have to take the time to learn them.
[T]eaching can be done without using a hammer. That would depend upon the thickness of the skull. You're no newcomer to these boards. And you are, no doubt, aware of the countless times that I have quoted the HTML specification directing you to not use tables for layout and the countless times that I have explained the rationale for this and yet you persist in trying to find out the best way to violate this rule.
Not too long ago there was a discussion on these boards about the best way to learn HTML. I took the position that you need to learn the right ways from the start. The majority position, however, seemed to be that people should start out with any old thing and then over time learn the correct ways. The problem is that it while it easy to learn the right ways from the start, it is really hard to unlearn the wrong ways.
This stuff isn't rocket science, but it's not modern art either. The rules are easily learned but you have to take the time to learn them.
gil davis
05-19-2003, 12:20 PM
Initially posted by Charles
This stuff isn't rocket science, but it's not modern art either.I think that the abundance of free WYSIWYG editors makes people use tables to format their pages. After that they discover that those editors add gobs of unnecessary tags and other strange quirks. When they manually edit the resulting pages, they probably get the aforementioned (Khaki) headache.
The other rather large irritant is the way most HTML validators work.
Originally posted by khaki
teaching can be done without using a hammer.
There are people that are artistic and don't want to be bothered with the rules, and just want the markup to display their work faithfully. But you really do need to learn the rules, even though browsers still make errors on the presentation whether it is due to bugs, or interpretation of those rules.
Personally, I learn rather piecemeal and take things as they become interesting or useful. Starting at the beginning as Charles suggests would be for those who want to be meticulous about it: a purist approach. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it certainly is dry reading, and they do not furnish many examples.
This stuff isn't rocket science, but it's not modern art either.I think that the abundance of free WYSIWYG editors makes people use tables to format their pages. After that they discover that those editors add gobs of unnecessary tags and other strange quirks. When they manually edit the resulting pages, they probably get the aforementioned (Khaki) headache.
The other rather large irritant is the way most HTML validators work.
Originally posted by khaki
teaching can be done without using a hammer.
There are people that are artistic and don't want to be bothered with the rules, and just want the markup to display their work faithfully. But you really do need to learn the rules, even though browsers still make errors on the presentation whether it is due to bugs, or interpretation of those rules.
Personally, I learn rather piecemeal and take things as they become interesting or useful. Starting at the beginning as Charles suggests would be for those who want to be meticulous about it: a purist approach. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it certainly is dry reading, and they do not furnish many examples.
khalidali63
05-19-2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by gil davis
........ of free WYSIWYG editors makes people use tables to format .....
I can not agree more,I guess we can easily toss the ball in MS(frontpage) and Macromedia(Dreamweaver)' court in this case.
Not that I have any bias against them,but in my opinion for learning something one do have to go to the core of the matter(Charle's point of view),once all ins and outs are learned then a WYSIWYG could be a good tool to speed up development.
And on top of all,
w3c is the ultimate source for learning all these standards.
........ of free WYSIWYG editors makes people use tables to format .....
I can not agree more,I guess we can easily toss the ball in MS(frontpage) and Macromedia(Dreamweaver)' court in this case.
Not that I have any bias against them,but in my opinion for learning something one do have to go to the core of the matter(Charle's point of view),once all ins and outs are learned then a WYSIWYG could be a good tool to speed up development.
And on top of all,
w3c is the ultimate source for learning all these standards.
khaki
05-19-2003, 01:28 PM
oh boy....
suddenly i've become the poster-child for using tables for layout :confused:
and WYSIWYG :confused: :confused:
Charles is correct when he says that i am no stranger to these boards.
but if you know that... you should also be aware that i DON'T use tables for page layout.
And i DON'T use WYSIWYG!!!
(just read through my posts... if you have a few weeks to waste! lol).
i do use tables...
but i use them for tabular data (dynamically created via queries to databases).
i also still sometimes use them for forms...
although not just so that i can find every possible way to "violate the rules" (yikes! Charles, why are you hammering me so hard? i just don't get it :( ).
anyway... (and i'm sure that my punctuation is making Charles nuts - as witness by his correction on my quote in his thread :rolleyes: - so I will discipline myself going forward)...
So anyway...
The MAIN basis for my question was to learn how to format my tabular data (tables are still okay for tabular data... right?)
I mean, I really don't mind learning a non-table solution if anyone would like to provide one (but it would need to be able to generate itself within a VBScript loop). So... ? Anyone?
Anyway (again).. the reason that I still use tables for my BIGGER forms is because I find it very difficult to duplicate the precision and formatting that I get from tables.
I have not been able to find a way for CSS to position all of my form elements (radio buttons, checkboxes, etc) with the same success (and without writing a LOT more code than is required to write a basic table.
I DID try though. And reading the W3 "textbook" didn't make any bulbs go on in my head...
so yes... I sometimes use tables for positioning form elements.
Would I rather NOT? Yes.
So.... does anyone have a real-life example that I can learn from and then apply to all of my future forms?
Geez... I'm not lazy...
But I am self-taught (I started playing with this stuff when I was just a kid)... so I have a LOT to learn just so that I can figure-out what it is that I need to UN-learn.
But at least I TRY. And at least I am making an EFFORT.
All of my pages already work (x-browser), and many of them are very complex. But I realize that they are not up to W3 standards. And I'm looking to change that.
But I work with other people who do this stuff for a living too... and they don't even CARE!
So when I ask a question...
I'm really not looking for a lecture or a reprimand.
And I'm also not looking to read YEARS worth of material to solve something that can be understood with a basic and simple example.
I appreciate the help... but sometimes it really needs to be more specific to the question.
And the accusations... (ugh).
Let's just get this straight:
I can code EVERYTHING in Notepad.
I get PAID to be a web-developer.
My work is better than many of the people I work with.
I want to LEARN how to code to the standards.
So...
Can I count on you guys to HELP?
Or am I gonna have to defend myself every time I ask a question? :(
And if the W3 is so great at explaining everything... how come there are still so many non-compliant code writers out there? Yeesh.
Good grief....
another fricken novel :rolleyes:
:( k
suddenly i've become the poster-child for using tables for layout :confused:
and WYSIWYG :confused: :confused:
Charles is correct when he says that i am no stranger to these boards.
but if you know that... you should also be aware that i DON'T use tables for page layout.
And i DON'T use WYSIWYG!!!
(just read through my posts... if you have a few weeks to waste! lol).
i do use tables...
but i use them for tabular data (dynamically created via queries to databases).
i also still sometimes use them for forms...
although not just so that i can find every possible way to "violate the rules" (yikes! Charles, why are you hammering me so hard? i just don't get it :( ).
anyway... (and i'm sure that my punctuation is making Charles nuts - as witness by his correction on my quote in his thread :rolleyes: - so I will discipline myself going forward)...
So anyway...
The MAIN basis for my question was to learn how to format my tabular data (tables are still okay for tabular data... right?)
I mean, I really don't mind learning a non-table solution if anyone would like to provide one (but it would need to be able to generate itself within a VBScript loop). So... ? Anyone?
Anyway (again).. the reason that I still use tables for my BIGGER forms is because I find it very difficult to duplicate the precision and formatting that I get from tables.
I have not been able to find a way for CSS to position all of my form elements (radio buttons, checkboxes, etc) with the same success (and without writing a LOT more code than is required to write a basic table.
I DID try though. And reading the W3 "textbook" didn't make any bulbs go on in my head...
so yes... I sometimes use tables for positioning form elements.
Would I rather NOT? Yes.
So.... does anyone have a real-life example that I can learn from and then apply to all of my future forms?
Geez... I'm not lazy...
But I am self-taught (I started playing with this stuff when I was just a kid)... so I have a LOT to learn just so that I can figure-out what it is that I need to UN-learn.
But at least I TRY. And at least I am making an EFFORT.
All of my pages already work (x-browser), and many of them are very complex. But I realize that they are not up to W3 standards. And I'm looking to change that.
But I work with other people who do this stuff for a living too... and they don't even CARE!
So when I ask a question...
I'm really not looking for a lecture or a reprimand.
And I'm also not looking to read YEARS worth of material to solve something that can be understood with a basic and simple example.
I appreciate the help... but sometimes it really needs to be more specific to the question.
And the accusations... (ugh).
Let's just get this straight:
I can code EVERYTHING in Notepad.
I get PAID to be a web-developer.
My work is better than many of the people I work with.
I want to LEARN how to code to the standards.
So...
Can I count on you guys to HELP?
Or am I gonna have to defend myself every time I ask a question? :(
And if the W3 is so great at explaining everything... how come there are still so many non-compliant code writers out there? Yeesh.
Good grief....
another fricken novel :rolleyes:
:( k
khaki
05-19-2003, 02:54 PM
okay....
headache is gone...
and my frustration has given way to depression...
so can we please get serious (please :( )
i realize that <table> to many of the people in this forum is like blood in the water to a shark...
but can i please get those of you who have unfairly accused me of page-layout crimes to please (please) offer something other than a reference to the W3 (p-l-e-a-s-e).
i already admitted that i sometimes use tables to contain forms.
so... here is a table with a form.
please tell me how to do this in CSS instead.
the W3 won't help me figure this out. that's why i asked here (and you guys jumped all over me like i am some lazy WYSIWYG rule breaker who uses nested tables for page-layout :( )
can i please (please) get some help on how this would be done?
i'm not asking for a handout (please just teach me to fish... i'll feed myself from that point forward. really)
anyone (please)?
:( k
<table>
<tr>
<td><input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton"></td>
<td><input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton"></td>
<td>some text</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton"></td>
<td><input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton"></td>
<td>some text</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton"></td>
<td><input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton"></td>
<td>some text</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan=2> </td>
<td><input type="text" name="textfield"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan=2><input type="submit" name="Submit" value="Submit"></td>
<td><input type="reset" name="Reset" value="Reset" /></td>
</tr>
</table>
headache is gone...
and my frustration has given way to depression...
so can we please get serious (please :( )
i realize that <table> to many of the people in this forum is like blood in the water to a shark...
but can i please get those of you who have unfairly accused me of page-layout crimes to please (please) offer something other than a reference to the W3 (p-l-e-a-s-e).
i already admitted that i sometimes use tables to contain forms.
so... here is a table with a form.
please tell me how to do this in CSS instead.
the W3 won't help me figure this out. that's why i asked here (and you guys jumped all over me like i am some lazy WYSIWYG rule breaker who uses nested tables for page-layout :( )
can i please (please) get some help on how this would be done?
i'm not asking for a handout (please just teach me to fish... i'll feed myself from that point forward. really)
anyone (please)?
:( k
<table>
<tr>
<td><input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton"></td>
<td><input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton"></td>
<td>some text</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton"></td>
<td><input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton"></td>
<td>some text</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton"></td>
<td><input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton"></td>
<td>some text</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan=2> </td>
<td><input type="text" name="textfield"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan=2><input type="submit" name="Submit" value="Submit"></td>
<td><input type="reset" name="Reset" value="Reset" /></td>
</tr>
</table>
nkaisare
05-19-2003, 03:51 PM
http://www.alistapart.com/stories/practicalcss/
[Scroll down and see code for forms]
My personal suggestion is to replace
<span class="label">Name:</span>
with
<label for="myname">Name:</label>
and make corresponding change in CSS. <label> isn't really necessary with textboxes, but with checkboxes/radiobuttons (accessibility: larger area available to ckeck/unckeck a box).
[Scroll down and see code for forms]
My personal suggestion is to replace
<span class="label">Name:</span>
with
<label for="myname">Name:</label>
and make corresponding change in CSS. <label> isn't really necessary with textboxes, but with checkboxes/radiobuttons (accessibility: larger area available to ckeck/unckeck a box).
khaki
05-19-2003, 04:10 PM
thank you Niket...
I've actually stumbled upon that page once before... but for some reason I was not having much success with it (i don't remember why... but i'll give it another try).
Interesting comment from that page:
Another common use for TABLE layout is lining up FORM elements with their labels. While it could be argued that this is an appropriate use of TABLEs, the CSS technique that I describe below will prove to be useful for other, similar layout needs, as we will see.
... I can guarantee that this guy would indeed get an argument from some people around here! LOL
anyway... i'll try that.
thanks again for being helpfull.
i've really got to stop letting these guys make me feel like i'm being bullied (my problem... not theirs, i suppose).
always appreciative of your kindness Niket...
;) k
I've actually stumbled upon that page once before... but for some reason I was not having much success with it (i don't remember why... but i'll give it another try).
Interesting comment from that page:
Another common use for TABLE layout is lining up FORM elements with their labels. While it could be argued that this is an appropriate use of TABLEs, the CSS technique that I describe below will prove to be useful for other, similar layout needs, as we will see.
... I can guarantee that this guy would indeed get an argument from some people around here! LOL
anyway... i'll try that.
thanks again for being helpfull.
i've really got to stop letting these guys make me feel like i'm being bullied (my problem... not theirs, i suppose).
always appreciative of your kindness Niket...
;) k
gil davis
05-19-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by khaki
i realize that <table> to many of the people in this forum is like blood in the water to a shark
...
please tell me how to do this in CSS instead.
I wouldn't change it. However, here is a rough stab at it. There are problems with line spacing due to the size of the text compared to the form fields, so it doesn't line up well. Maybe someone better in CSS can lend a helping hand. Anyway, here it goes:<form onsubmit="return false">
<div style="width: 230">
<span style="float: left">
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<br>
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<br>
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<br>
<br>
<input type="submit" name="Submit" value="Submit">
</span>
<span style="float: right">
some text<br>
some text<br>
some text<br>
<input type="text" name="textfield">
<br>
<input type="reset" name="Reset" value="Reset">
<br>
</span>
</div>
</form>
i realize that <table> to many of the people in this forum is like blood in the water to a shark
...
please tell me how to do this in CSS instead.
I wouldn't change it. However, here is a rough stab at it. There are problems with line spacing due to the size of the text compared to the form fields, so it doesn't line up well. Maybe someone better in CSS can lend a helping hand. Anyway, here it goes:<form onsubmit="return false">
<div style="width: 230">
<span style="float: left">
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<br>
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<br>
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<br>
<br>
<input type="submit" name="Submit" value="Submit">
</span>
<span style="float: right">
some text<br>
some text<br>
some text<br>
<input type="text" name="textfield">
<br>
<input type="reset" name="Reset" value="Reset">
<br>
</span>
</div>
</form>
jeffmott
05-19-2003, 05:34 PM
Though I'll leave Charles as the more definitive voice for this, I believe tables may be appropriate (enough to justify their use anyway) for enclosing form controls so long as the labels are table headers and the control itself is table data referencing back to its associated table header.
It may also interest people to know that CSS can render a DIV as if it were a table cell.<div style="display: table-row">
<div style="display: table-cell">Hello</div>
<div style="display: table-cell">World</div>
</div>
<div style="display: table-row">
<div style="display: table-cell">Foo</div>
<div style="display: table-cell">Bar</div>
</div>This displays properly in at least NS7 and Opera7 (if anyone would like to test earlier versions of either, please post your results). Unfortunately it can't be reliably used right now because it would fail in ~90% of browsers. Yup, good old Microsoft, which probably has more money and man power to throw around than Netscape and Opera combined, has not yet implemented this.
It may also interest people to know that CSS can render a DIV as if it were a table cell.<div style="display: table-row">
<div style="display: table-cell">Hello</div>
<div style="display: table-cell">World</div>
</div>
<div style="display: table-row">
<div style="display: table-cell">Foo</div>
<div style="display: table-cell">Bar</div>
</div>This displays properly in at least NS7 and Opera7 (if anyone would like to test earlier versions of either, please post your results). Unfortunately it can't be reliably used right now because it would fail in ~90% of browsers. Yup, good old Microsoft, which probably has more money and man power to throw around than Netscape and Opera combined, has not yet implemented this.
Charles
05-19-2003, 06:48 PM
You who profess the use of tables for layout, do you consider yourselves smarter than the good people at the W3C or do you think that you are better informed? And please, I'm having trouble putting charitable spin on your complaint that making a page work for everybody is reverse discrimination. The only thing that I can imagine is that it pains you to think that there are people out there different from yourselves. Please clarify.
Khaki, being someone who is neither that smart, nor that well informed, I'm having trouble understanding what the problem is. Why wont the following, HTML 3.2 solution work for you? (Note, for clarity I've omitted the LABEL elements.)
<div>
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
some text
</div>
<div><input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
some text
</div>
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
some text
</div>
<div>
<input type="text" name="textfield">
</div>
<div>
<input type="submit" name="Submit" value="Submit">
<input type="reset" name="Reset" value="Reset">
</div>
Khaki, being someone who is neither that smart, nor that well informed, I'm having trouble understanding what the problem is. Why wont the following, HTML 3.2 solution work for you? (Note, for clarity I've omitted the LABEL elements.)
<div>
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
some text
</div>
<div><input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
some text
</div>
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
<input type="radio" name="radiobutton" value="radiobutton">
some text
</div>
<div>
<input type="text" name="textfield">
</div>
<div>
<input type="submit" name="Submit" value="Submit">
<input type="reset" name="Reset" value="Reset">
</div>
khaki
05-19-2003, 11:10 PM
You who profess the use of tables for layout, do you consider yourselves smarter than the good people at the W3C or do you think that you are better informed? Profess? I ask for a solution other than a table solution... and you hear me "profess"???!!!???
Is it any wonder why i find myself defending every f*cking thing that i say here!!!!!!! i swear that i must be going insane!
And please, I'm having trouble putting charitable spin on your complaint that making a page work for everybody is reverse discrimination. The only thing that I can imagine is that it pains you to think that there are people out there different from yourselves. Please clarify. Charles... please explain. I know that I never said anything that even remotely resembles what you have said...
and nowhere in this thread is ANY of that mentioned.
This is the 2nd incident in this thread where you have taken something that I have NOT said... and yet it somehow has become my statement.
:confused:
do you hate me? why are you doing this?
why do i need to defend myself against things that i have never said?
this is so sad.... i don't even know what to say :(
this is so wrong. i can't defend myself from things like this... it's just wrong to do this... so WHY?. why Charles? please tell me why :(
Khaki, being someone who is neither that smart, nor that well informed, I'm having trouble understanding what the problem is. okay...okay...
i get the point...
i ask for help and get ridiculed, dismissed, and find myself defending untrue statements that are somehow attributed to me.
Yet i see other people ask for help, and they get completed code that is fully functional and ready to be used.... without judgement.
:confused:
how depressing do you think this is for me?
any idea?
other people ask... and they get help.
i ask... and i get "Why wont the following, HTML 3.2 solution work for you?"
I don't know.
But maybe i need help
(which was my point :( ).
f-it.
i don't know.
i just asked.
f-it.
i ask a question and 3 people pile-on and rant about something that i never said,
and... at the same time... they offer no solution (mob rules?).
Then... someone else is kind enough to offer a possible solution....
and then a solution comes out of nowhere with insults and lies attached.
wow :(
i don't get it - but i'm a caring and sensitive person... so i feel it.
So please... please don't respond to any thread that i start Charles...
and i'll make a point of avoiding those threads that you have responded to.
and then maybe i can maintain some sense of sanity...
and you can feel secure in the fact that you have "beaten" me and shown me to be a fool.
i was never looking for a fight...
but i found one...
and it was a dirty fight (shame on you :( ).
you win.
f-it.
:( :( :( k
Is it any wonder why i find myself defending every f*cking thing that i say here!!!!!!! i swear that i must be going insane!
And please, I'm having trouble putting charitable spin on your complaint that making a page work for everybody is reverse discrimination. The only thing that I can imagine is that it pains you to think that there are people out there different from yourselves. Please clarify. Charles... please explain. I know that I never said anything that even remotely resembles what you have said...
and nowhere in this thread is ANY of that mentioned.
This is the 2nd incident in this thread where you have taken something that I have NOT said... and yet it somehow has become my statement.
:confused:
do you hate me? why are you doing this?
why do i need to defend myself against things that i have never said?
this is so sad.... i don't even know what to say :(
this is so wrong. i can't defend myself from things like this... it's just wrong to do this... so WHY?. why Charles? please tell me why :(
Khaki, being someone who is neither that smart, nor that well informed, I'm having trouble understanding what the problem is. okay...okay...
i get the point...
i ask for help and get ridiculed, dismissed, and find myself defending untrue statements that are somehow attributed to me.
Yet i see other people ask for help, and they get completed code that is fully functional and ready to be used.... without judgement.
:confused:
how depressing do you think this is for me?
any idea?
other people ask... and they get help.
i ask... and i get "Why wont the following, HTML 3.2 solution work for you?"
I don't know.
But maybe i need help
(which was my point :( ).
f-it.
i don't know.
i just asked.
f-it.
i ask a question and 3 people pile-on and rant about something that i never said,
and... at the same time... they offer no solution (mob rules?).
Then... someone else is kind enough to offer a possible solution....
and then a solution comes out of nowhere with insults and lies attached.
wow :(
i don't get it - but i'm a caring and sensitive person... so i feel it.
So please... please don't respond to any thread that i start Charles...
and i'll make a point of avoiding those threads that you have responded to.
and then maybe i can maintain some sense of sanity...
and you can feel secure in the fact that you have "beaten" me and shown me to be a fool.
i was never looking for a fight...
but i found one...
and it was a dirty fight (shame on you :( ).
you win.
f-it.
:( :( :( k
Charles
05-20-2003, 04:47 AM
Those comments were not directed at you. They were directed at the people who profess using tables for layout and who complained that thinking about people with disabilities was some kind of onerous burden.
I gave you a hard time, it is true, but only because I know you as someone who knows better. But you are reading too much into things.
I gave you a hard time, it is true, but only because I know you as someone who knows better. But you are reading too much into things.
khaki
05-20-2003, 08:53 AM
I am mercifully ending my participation in this thread...
but before I go...
would you like to take this opportunity to also comment about tax-cheats, corrupt politicians, wife-beaters, child-abusers, or any other topic that also has nothing to do with my orignal question?
Oh... and before I go...
here is something that you may not have read yet:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#edef-TABLE
it appears that <table> is used and approved by the W3C.
So I can see how my question on how to format it using compliant technique would have thrown you.
Apparently you misread my question as a request for a lecture and opinion on something that is inside of your head.
Honest mistake....
I can see how that could happen.
:( k
but before I go...
would you like to take this opportunity to also comment about tax-cheats, corrupt politicians, wife-beaters, child-abusers, or any other topic that also has nothing to do with my orignal question?
Oh... and before I go...
here is something that you may not have read yet:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#edef-TABLE
it appears that <table> is used and approved by the W3C.
So I can see how my question on how to format it using compliant technique would have thrown you.
Apparently you misread my question as a request for a lecture and opinion on something that is inside of your head.
Honest mistake....
I can see how that could happen.
:( k
Charles
05-20-2003, 10:41 AM
Yes, the TABLE element exists but only for the purpose of organizing tabular data. From further up on that same page:Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables.And you would have noted, had you read my posts, that I posted a link to an example of the proper use of the TABLE element. And I did so in answer to a request of yours.
nkaisare
05-20-2003, 11:53 AM
This was a communication to me from Peter-Paul Koch (http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/) (who is considered as one of the people who know what they are talking about). The context was regarding box model and css hacks.
>I agree, though many people don't agree and someone will
>probably tell you that It's In The Specs (and thus sacred).
<edit> Correction: This was a communication to my friend Amit, which he had forwarded to me earlier</edit>
Using tables sparingly sometimes is a better way of doing things... especially if you are aware of what you are doing. The problem is that most people who are likely to (ab)use tables are not aware of accessibility issues. The case of Syndney Olympics was the first of---what I am afraid---many accessibility cases. Especially the "for-profit" web developers among us must be careful to make their webpages accessible. More often than not, "abused" tables are inaccessible, and hence a push from some quarters to abandon table-based layouts in favor of CSS.
Greg Kise makes some very good points in his ALA article on "selling" web standards (http://www.alistapart.com/stories/csstalking/). This was written in 2001... there may be more issues that have some up since then.
A curious link on avoiding personal conflict on lists and forums (http://madman.weblogs.com/2002/01/22)
Peace ;)
Niket
>I agree, though many people don't agree and someone will
>probably tell you that It's In The Specs (and thus sacred).
<edit> Correction: This was a communication to my friend Amit, which he had forwarded to me earlier</edit>
Using tables sparingly sometimes is a better way of doing things... especially if you are aware of what you are doing. The problem is that most people who are likely to (ab)use tables are not aware of accessibility issues. The case of Syndney Olympics was the first of---what I am afraid---many accessibility cases. Especially the "for-profit" web developers among us must be careful to make their webpages accessible. More often than not, "abused" tables are inaccessible, and hence a push from some quarters to abandon table-based layouts in favor of CSS.
Greg Kise makes some very good points in his ALA article on "selling" web standards (http://www.alistapart.com/stories/csstalking/). This was written in 2001... there may be more issues that have some up since then.
A curious link on avoiding personal conflict on lists and forums (http://madman.weblogs.com/2002/01/22)
Peace ;)
Niket
khalidali63
05-20-2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by nkaisare
........are likely to (ab)use tables are not aware of accessibility issues.
Peace ;)
Niket
Having read the w3c specs on tables and css layout arguments,I have come to this conclusion.
Its ok to use tables as long as they are not nested tables.
At the end it alwasys come to the person who uses the tool not the tool itself has any problem.
As in its the person that pulls th trigger...
So I'd say moderation is alwasy the best policy.Use tables use css,but be carefull to not over use any of them..
:D
........are likely to (ab)use tables are not aware of accessibility issues.
Peace ;)
Niket
Having read the w3c specs on tables and css layout arguments,I have come to this conclusion.
Its ok to use tables as long as they are not nested tables.
At the end it alwasys come to the person who uses the tool not the tool itself has any problem.
As in its the person that pulls th trigger...
So I'd say moderation is alwasy the best policy.Use tables use css,but be carefull to not over use any of them..
:D
khaki
05-20-2003, 01:14 PM
Shoving specs down people's throats (not as a helpful tool but as a hammer of conciet) serves no constructive purpose.
I DID read your post Charles.
and I was very aware of your link (I tossed it back at you because you didn't seem to read MY post).
So here it is again...
So anyway...
The MAIN basis for my question was to learn how to format my tabular data (tables are still okay for tabular data... right?)
Your response to that was:
You're no newcomer to these boards. And you are, no doubt, aware of the countless times that I have quoted the HTML specification directing you to not use tables for layout and the countless times that I have explained the rationale for this and yet you persist in trying to find out the best way to violate this rule.
There was obviously a very serious lack of communication here...
but I believe it stems from the fact that you don't really read people's posts... you just scan them for the "criminal" keywords (TABLE, FRAMES, JAVASCRIPT) and then you just come out swinging.
I simply asked for an example of formatting tables according to spec.
So how do you respond?
Like this:
And you will not find the example that you seek because it cannot exist. You are not supposed to use tables for layout.
You didn't want to help me...
you just wanted to ridicule me.
You didn't want to hear what I needed...
you just wanted to hear yourself.
You STILL want to hear yourself...
because you now say that tables for tabular data are okay...
but you never permitted me the "permission" of using them for that purpose.
I never argued for using tables for layout. That argument was a one-sided affair involving only yourself.
I thought that I explained (over-explained) my question very well. The fact that you chose to respond to something completely different is your problem.
So fine... don't help me format a table that contains tabular data.
But please also stop insulting me.
I came here to ask for help...
not for abuse.
You abused me Charles...
and you won't back-off... even now.
I don't understand it...
and I'm certainly not going to accept it.
You seem so determined to defend the W3 specs to protect the disabled.
That would appear to be a noble thing...
if it weren't for the fact that you think nothing of abusing me (and others who dare mention TABLE, FRAMES, and JAVASCRIPT).
The disabled need advocates Charles...
not bullies.
Maybe you need to figure-out which of those you resemble the most.
Thanks for link...
and the aggravation.
:( k
I DID read your post Charles.
and I was very aware of your link (I tossed it back at you because you didn't seem to read MY post).
So here it is again...
So anyway...
The MAIN basis for my question was to learn how to format my tabular data (tables are still okay for tabular data... right?)
Your response to that was:
You're no newcomer to these boards. And you are, no doubt, aware of the countless times that I have quoted the HTML specification directing you to not use tables for layout and the countless times that I have explained the rationale for this and yet you persist in trying to find out the best way to violate this rule.
There was obviously a very serious lack of communication here...
but I believe it stems from the fact that you don't really read people's posts... you just scan them for the "criminal" keywords (TABLE, FRAMES, JAVASCRIPT) and then you just come out swinging.
I simply asked for an example of formatting tables according to spec.
So how do you respond?
Like this:
And you will not find the example that you seek because it cannot exist. You are not supposed to use tables for layout.
You didn't want to help me...
you just wanted to ridicule me.
You didn't want to hear what I needed...
you just wanted to hear yourself.
You STILL want to hear yourself...
because you now say that tables for tabular data are okay...
but you never permitted me the "permission" of using them for that purpose.
I never argued for using tables for layout. That argument was a one-sided affair involving only yourself.
I thought that I explained (over-explained) my question very well. The fact that you chose to respond to something completely different is your problem.
So fine... don't help me format a table that contains tabular data.
But please also stop insulting me.
I came here to ask for help...
not for abuse.
You abused me Charles...
and you won't back-off... even now.
I don't understand it...
and I'm certainly not going to accept it.
You seem so determined to defend the W3 specs to protect the disabled.
That would appear to be a noble thing...
if it weren't for the fact that you think nothing of abusing me (and others who dare mention TABLE, FRAMES, and JAVASCRIPT).
The disabled need advocates Charles...
not bullies.
Maybe you need to figure-out which of those you resemble the most.
Thanks for link...
and the aggravation.
:( k
nkaisare
05-20-2003, 01:21 PM
Lets hope the ":( k" turns to the usual ";) k" pretty soon.
BTW, what was the original topic of this thread :)?
BTW, what was the original topic of this thread :)?
gil davis
05-20-2003, 02:44 PM
I think we scared the poor guy off. He never returned.
Charles
05-20-2003, 02:49 PM
To be fair the W3C specs and guidelines are a little bit inconsistent on the matter. The 4.01 Spec tells you not to use the TABLE element for layout but then you are cautioned to carefully employ the LABEL element with form elements when you do use TABLEs for layout. And the accessibility guidelines tell you to not use TABLEs for layout unless the make sense when linerized. Both of those were written back in 1999 and a few things have changed since then.
Non-graphical browsers and user agents handle tables in two different ways and back in 1999 they simply ignored them as Lynx does. That's where the bit about pages linerizing well comes in. Someone listening to your page on an audio browser doesn't want to listen to the same long list of links at the start of every page of you site. But thats what you get when tables are used to put the nav bar down the left side of the screen. It is important that the page not look like crap in Lynx. One table solution is to place the links down the right hand side of the screen or along the bottom and the US Department of Justice suggests using a "skip navigation" link.
But time marches on and 21st century non-graphical browsers are less tolerant of TABLE abuse. The problem is that the TABLE element is useful in its own right. It is a good and proper way to mark up tabular data to show the relationships. As a sighted person I can quickly scan the screen and see that a data cell is under some heading. All users need that information so non-graphical browsers are starting to make it available. In other words, some browsers will announce the headings with each cell, even if they have to guess what the headings are. You can expect this to make a real mess out of your page. In the book Constructing Accessible Web Sites (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2W76NOC101&isbn=1904151000&itm=1) there is a really good review of how various different screen readers handle tables. The review is by Jim Thatcher who invented the screen reader.
Non-graphical browsers and user agents handle tables in two different ways and back in 1999 they simply ignored them as Lynx does. That's where the bit about pages linerizing well comes in. Someone listening to your page on an audio browser doesn't want to listen to the same long list of links at the start of every page of you site. But thats what you get when tables are used to put the nav bar down the left side of the screen. It is important that the page not look like crap in Lynx. One table solution is to place the links down the right hand side of the screen or along the bottom and the US Department of Justice suggests using a "skip navigation" link.
But time marches on and 21st century non-graphical browsers are less tolerant of TABLE abuse. The problem is that the TABLE element is useful in its own right. It is a good and proper way to mark up tabular data to show the relationships. As a sighted person I can quickly scan the screen and see that a data cell is under some heading. All users need that information so non-graphical browsers are starting to make it available. In other words, some browsers will announce the headings with each cell, even if they have to guess what the headings are. You can expect this to make a real mess out of your page. In the book Constructing Accessible Web Sites (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2W76NOC101&isbn=1904151000&itm=1) there is a really good review of how various different screen readers handle tables. The review is by Jim Thatcher who invented the screen reader.
webdeveloper.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.