cellpadding and cellspacing problem

Discussion in 'HTML' started by K., Apr 12, 2007.

  1. K.

    K. Guest

    Hello!

    I created yet unfinished page www.slub.zmyslowski.pl about my wedding.
    I would like to fit it to every browser, mostly for Firefox and Internet
    Explorer.
    On internet explorer everything is fine, but
    when I open this page on Firefox I have small white lines between two images
    and I don`t know where error is. Could you help me?

    I used validator before-> http://www.htmlvalidator.com/. -> my page is
    valid.

    Kindest regards
    Marcin
    K., Apr 12, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Apr 12, 8:02 am, "K." <> wrote:

    > I created yet unfinished pagewww.slub.zmyslowski.pl about my wedding....
    > I used validator before->http://www.htmlvalidator.com/. -> my page is


    Man I don't have an answer for you, but I have to give you kudos for
    doing all the prerequisite work and giving us a URL and validating
    your page first. This is a rare thing in alt.html

    I think we should all give the OP the "doing the right thing" award,
    and all the honors that come with it.
    Travis Newbury, Apr 12, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. K.

    Els Guest

    K. wrote:

    > On internet explorer everything is fine, but
    > when I open this page on Firefox I have small white lines between two images
    > and I don`t know where error is. Could you help me?


    If you give the images in the first and second row of the table an
    extra attribute: style="display:block;", then the lines will
    disappear. They are caused by the space that is below text and
    inline-images, to make room for descenders of letters like g,j,p,q,y.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/
    Els, Apr 12, 2007
    #3
  4. Scripsit Travis Newbury:

    > On Apr 12, 8:02 am, "K." <> wrote:
    >
    >> I created yet unfinished pagewww.slub.zmyslowski.pl about my
    >> wedding.... I used validator before->http://www.htmlvalidator.com/.
    >> -> my page is

    >
    > Man I don't have an answer for you, but I have to give you kudos for
    > doing all the prerequisite work and giving us a URL and validating
    > your page first.


    Well, almost giving us a URL (the http:// part is missing) and trying to
    validate. Unfortunately, he used a product that is dishonestly sold as a
    validator but isn't, the infamous "CSE HTML Validator". His confusion is
    understandable; the phoney validator's business isn't.

    In reality, the page contains dozens of syntax errors, as a real validator
    like http://validator.w3.org would tell (for free). The page has a mixture
    of XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01 syntax, and contrary to the doctype declaration,
    it uses Transitional features. It should be fixed to comply with HTML 4.01
    Transitional, then perhaps improved (by replacing presentational markup by
    CSS) to HTML 4.01 Strict.

    The problem asked is independent of these problems. As Els writes in his
    reply, the gaps are caused "by the space that is below text and
    inline-images, to make room for descenders of letters like g,j,p,q,y".
    Setting display: block for the images is one way of fixing. Another option,
    perhaps more natural, is
    img { vertical-align: bottom; }

    Technically, the problem is that an image is treated as a special kind of
    text element, like a letter, which is by definition vertically aligned to
    the _baseline_ of text. You can see this if you put an image between
    letters, e.g. <p>yep<img ...>yep</p>.

    This is what CSS specifications say, and Firefox obeys this, whereas IE
    doesn't. But this can fixed either by making the images blocks (as far as
    rendering is considered), which aren't treated as text elements, or by
    explicitly setting their vertical alignment to bottom (i.e., the bottom of
    the image is aligned to the bottom of the enclosing element's box).

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Apr 12, 2007
    #4
  5. K.

    Bergamot Guest

    Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >
    > Technically, the problem is that an image is treated as a special kind of
    > text element, like a letter, which is by definition vertically aligned to
    > the _baseline_ of text.
    >
    > This is what CSS specifications say, and Firefox obeys this, whereas IE
    > doesn't.


    FYI, IE has other bugs with replaced elements, too, such as failure to
    honor line-height.

    --
    Berg
    Bergamot, Apr 12, 2007
    #5
  6. K.

    dorayme Guest

    In article <evl76g$b8t$>,
    "K." <> wrote:

    > Hello!
    >
    > I created yet unfinished page www.slub.zmyslowski.pl about my wedding.
    > I would like to fit it to every browser, mostly for Firefox and Internet
    > Explorer.
    > On internet explorer everything is fine, but
    > when I open this page on Firefox I have small white lines between two images
    > and I don`t know where error is. Could you help me?


    The white line prob has been addressed and you have two excellent
    answers. If you go with Els' you can simply put a line in your
    style sheet for all images (rather than pick out particular
    images), img {display:block;}

    Not sure why you have image map for the top banner? Do you need
    to have link for it?

    In fact, considering the errors in the page, why not simplify it
    greatly. Either as a table or as not. The table idea first:

    First row would be just a cell with your Baner.gif, second row
    would be a row with 5 cells, in each a simple text link, you can
    recommend a font and specify a starting size. This would have the
    advantage of scaling with the text size of the user, not using
    more bandwidth to transmit pictures etc. If you must have images
    for the links, no need for all the image map code. Imagemaps come
    into their own when you have a big picture and want to link to
    bits of it. There is not much point in having an image map if you
    are already splitting up the image anyways into separate images.
    Third row is paragraph text with a centered HeyKasiaNosowska.jpg.
    Enclose text in <p>s, style them if necessary.

    Use

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD html 4.01//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

    to head your html and use a proper validator (see JK's
    suggestion) to check up on your code.

    If you have time, forget about the table structure for so simple
    a site, consider using (as a simple suggestion), a div for the
    head, an inline list for the navigation, and another div to hold
    the bottom with paragraphs and images. Look up inline lists on
    Google.

    Just some suggestions!

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Apr 12, 2007
    #6
  7. K.

    K. Guest

    Uzytkownik "Jukka K. Korpela" <> napisal w wiadomosci
    news:yTvTh.35223$...
    > Scripsit Travis Newbury:
    >
    >> On Apr 12, 8:02 am, "K." <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I created yet unfinished pagewww.slub.zmyslowski.pl about my
    >>> wedding.... I used validator before->http://www.htmlvalidator.com/.
    >>> -> my page is

    >>
    >> Man I don't have an answer for you, but I have to give you kudos for
    >> doing all the prerequisite work and giving us a URL and validating
    >> your page first.

    >
    > Well, almost giving us a URL (the http:// part is missing) and trying to
    > validate. Unfortunately, he used a product that is dishonestly sold as a
    > validator but isn't, the infamous "CSE HTML Validator". His confusion is
    > understandable; the phoney validator's business isn't.
    >
    > In reality, the page contains dozens of syntax errors, as a real validator
    > like http://validator.w3.org would tell (for free). The page has a mixture
    > of XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01 syntax, and contrary to the doctype
    > declaration, it uses Transitional features. It should be fixed to comply
    > with HTML 4.01 Transitional, then perhaps improved (by replacing
    > presentational markup by CSS) to HTML 4.01 Strict.
    >
    > The problem asked is independent of these problems. As Els writes in his
    > reply, the gaps are caused "by the space that is below text and
    > inline-images, to make room for descenders of letters like g,j,p,q,y".
    > Setting display: block for the images is one way of fixing. Another
    > option, perhaps more natural, is
    > img { vertical-align: bottom; }
    >
    > Technically, the problem is that an image is treated as a special kind of
    > text element, like a letter, which is by definition vertically aligned to
    > the _baseline_ of text. You can see this if you put an image between
    > letters, e.g. <p>yep<img ...>yep</p>.
    >
    > This is what CSS specifications say, and Firefox obeys this, whereas IE
    > doesn't. But this can fixed either by making the images blocks (as far as
    > rendering is considered), which aren't treated as text elements, or by
    > explicitly setting their vertical alignment to bottom (i.e., the bottom of
    > the image is aligned to the bottom of the enclosing element's box).
    >
    > --
    > Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    > http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/




    THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HELP

    It fully helped me

    Thank you one more time
    Marcin
    K., Apr 13, 2007
    #7
  8. "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
    news:yTvTh.35223$...
    >
    > Unfortunately, he used a product that is dishonestly sold as a validator
    > but isn't, the infamous "CSE HTML Validator". His confusion is
    > understandable; the phoney validator's business isn't.


    It's only "phony" if you strictly limit your definition... the vast majority
    of people would agree that CSE HTML Validator is a validator since they
    understand the general meaning and function of an "HTML validator". Plus,
    CSE HTML Validator can find many more problems than "real" validators. Have
    a look at
    http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/whycseisbetter.html

    The online validator at http://www.htmlvalidator.com/ is limited since it is
    based on the free lite edition, so it doesn't find as many issues as the
    paid versions, but still is quite useful and can still find issues that
    other validators and checkers miss.

    But passing validation by any validator does not mean your page will display
    "right". Different browsers can display the same HTML differently, and this
    greatly complicates trying to render certain things a specific way in
    multiple browsers.

    Albert
    Albert Wiersch, Apr 13, 2007
    #8
  9. Scripsit Albert Wiersch:

    > "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
    > news:yTvTh.35223$...
    >>
    >> Unfortunately, he used a product that is dishonestly sold as a
    >> validator but isn't, the infamous "CSE HTML Validator". His
    >> confusion is understandable; the phoney validator's business isn't.

    >
    > It's only "phony" if you strictly limit your definition...


    Not unexpectedly, you express your continued determinedness to sell your
    product under a misleading name, i.e. to cheat customers.

    Not unexpectedly, you had nothing to say about the user's confusion that
    your program caused by giving false information. You don't really
    participate Usenet discussions; you just advertize and present excuses for
    misleading people.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Apr 15, 2007
    #9
  10. "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
    news:64rUh.37025$...
    >
    > Not unexpectedly, you express your continued determinedness to sell your
    > product under a misleading name, i.e. to cheat customers.


    Actually, our customers would feel cheated if they only got a "real"
    validator as you define it. They don't want to be limited to that, but we do
    include one in the current std/pro editions, though hardly anyone uses it
    based on the questions and feedback (lack of that is) I get about it.

    > Not unexpectedly, you had nothing to say about the user's confusion that
    > your program caused by giving false information. You don't really
    > participate Usenet discussions; you just advertize and present excuses for
    > misleading people.


    Saying (or implying) that a "real" DTD based validator is the only type of
    checking worth doing is what is truly misleading. If there is any "false"
    information I or the product gives out, then please feel free to bring it to
    my attention, but please don't rehash the name argument or anything based on
    it as there's no need to keep arguing about that. You can disgree with it,
    but most people (I'd say more than 99%) have no problem with it. And like I
    said earlier, the current std/pro editions include a DTD based validator for
    the few who want to use one.

    Albert
    Albert Wiersch, Apr 16, 2007
    #10
  11. Scripsit Albert Wiersch:

    > Saying (or implying) that a "real" DTD based validator is the only
    > type of checking worth doing is what is truly misleading.


    It would. And it is disgustingly dishonest that you present, for your
    commercial purposes, my view as if I had written something like that. Surely
    you know better, if you have read what I have written about validation, and
    you have hardly managed to avoid that because you keep commenting on it.
    Thus, you make deliberate lies.

    I have repeatedly said that a good checking tool that checks _many_ aspects
    of web page quality would be very useful. The product you are selling is
    nothing of the kind, though. If you cannot perform a simple and fairly
    trivial part of the checking correctly, how could you do something
    essentially more complicated? Even if some of the checks it performs are in
    the right direction, users will have no way of distinguishing them from
    bogus. What's the point of getting a hundred "error messages" when half of
    them are just nonsense, even if some of the rest relate to some real error?

    > If there is
    > any "false" information I or the product gives out, then please feel
    > free to bring it to my attention,


    You have repeatedly expressed your willingness to ignore such notes.

    You keep selling your phony "validator", and you keep confusing people about
    validation (they're surely confused enough without your efforts). The name
    seems to be important to you, despite its incorrectness. Ergo, it is
    important to you to mislead potential customers.

    And you have not made _any_ statement about the fact from which the
    discussion started: that your product once again seriously misled someone.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Apr 17, 2007
    #11
  12. "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
    news:D_0Vh.37957$...
    >
    > It would. And it is disgustingly dishonest that you present, for your
    > commercial purposes, my view as if I had written something like that.
    > Surely you know better, if you have read what I have written about
    > validation, and you have hardly managed to avoid that because you keep
    > commenting on it. Thus, you make deliberate lies.


    I've read your posts and to me at least, they imply that people should use a
    "real" validator instead of CSE HTML Validator. They imply that there's no
    use for a checker like CSE HTML Validator.

    > I have repeatedly said that a good checking tool that checks _many_
    > aspects of web page quality would be very useful. The product you are
    > selling is nothing of the kind, though. If you cannot perform a simple and
    > fairly trivial part of the checking correctly, how could you do something
    > essentially more complicated? Even if some of the checks it performs are
    > in the right direction, users will have no way of distinguishing them from
    > bogus. What's the point of getting a hundred "error messages" when half of
    > them are just nonsense, even if some of the rest relate to some real
    > error?


    I suppose you don't know CSE HTML Validator if you think it doesn't perform
    checks on _many_aspects of a web page. It certainly does. I don't know what
    you are referring to as "bogus" except that you think the name is "bogus".
    Otherwise please let me know of something specific it says that is truly
    bogus.

    Since you repeatedly say that a good checking tool checks _many_ aspects of
    a web page, why do you continue to bash CSE HTML Validator? Now that it
    includes a "real" validator (std/pro) on top of all the other checks it
    does, I would think that you would be recommending it left and right!

    As for having a hundred "error messages" when have are nonsense, please tell
    me what messages are nonsense? Yes there may be some "cascading" errors that
    may cause confusion... no checker is perfect and some people will always get
    confused, especially people who are new to HTML and just learning it.

    >
    >> If there is
    >> any "false" information I or the product gives out, then please feel
    >> free to bring it to my attention,

    >
    > You have repeatedly expressed your willingness to ignore such notes.


    I have only ignored the ones that I deemed weren't useful. Obviously it
    wouldn't make sense to act on every note since not every note is useful. By
    useful I mean that it will result in a positive improvement in the product
    and in what people obtain from it.

    > You keep selling your phony "validator", and you keep confusing people
    > about validation (they're surely confused enough without your efforts).
    > The name seems to be important to you, despite its incorrectness. Ergo, it
    > is important to you to mislead potential customers.


    I wouldn't blame me for the confusion... DTD based validators are much more
    confusing that CSE HTML Validator. It seems misleading to me when the W3C
    calls documents that have a lot of problems "valid". I have an example on my
    site of a page with many problems, but "real" validators don't find any of
    the issues. That sure sounds like it could misleading!

    > And you have not made _any_ statement about the fact from which the
    > discussion started: that your product once again seriously misled someone.


    Sorry, I don't see how it misled the original poster. The only confusion I
    potentially see is that the OP may not have known that just because a page
    doesn't have problems (as detected by a checker) that it doesn't mean it
    will render as intended. Also, like I said before, the W3C misleads the same
    way, by saying a page is valid when it doesn't render as the user intended
    or still contains problem. With that logic, then all checkers and validators
    would be misleading.

    Albert
    Albert Wiersch, Apr 17, 2007
    #12
  13. Scripsit Albert Wiersch:

    >> And you have not made _any_ statement about the fact from which the
    >> discussion started: that your product once again seriously misled
    >> someone.

    >
    > Sorry, I don't see how it misled the original poster. The only
    > confusion I potentially see is that the OP may not have known that
    > just because a page doesn't have problems (as detected by a checker)
    > that it doesn't mean it will render as intended. Also, like I said
    > before, the W3C misleads the same way, by saying a page is valid when
    > it doesn't render as the user intended or still contains problem.
    > With that logic, then all checkers and validators would be misleading.


    Babble, babble.

    Are you pretending to be so stupid that you did not understand the
    statements that described that the "CSE HTML Validator" claimed a page to be
    valid when it in fact had dozens of reportable markup errors, i.e. was
    invalid in the sense that is relevant in HTML context?

    You have repeatedly claimed that your commercial product, "CSE HTML
    Validator", is better than the free validators around. Once again, it was
    pointed out that it is much _less_ and even claims that a page is valid when
    it is not.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Apr 17, 2007
    #13
  14. "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in message
    news:Yx7Vh.38247$...
    >
    > Are you pretending to be so stupid that you did not understand the
    > statements that described that the "CSE HTML Validator" claimed a page to
    > be valid when it in fact had dozens of reportable markup errors, i.e. was
    > invalid in the sense that is relevant in HTML context?


    I don't think I'm the stupid one here. CSE HTML Validator doesn't claim
    pages to be "valid". It simply finds potential issues based on real-world
    browsers. It doesn't generate as many worthless (useless in real-life)
    "errors" as real validators.

    > You have repeatedly claimed that your commercial product, "CSE HTML
    > Validator", is better than the free validators around.


    Because it is in a many number of ways.

    > Once again, it was pointed out that it is much _less_ and even claims that
    > a page is valid when it is not.


    Once again you do not know what you're talking about because CSE HTML
    Validator doesn't claim pages are "valid".

    Albert
    Albert Wiersch, Apr 17, 2007
    #14
  15. Albert Wiersch wrote:

    > CSE HTML Validator doesn't claim pages to be "valid". ...


    Well! Then why do you name it CSE HTML *Validator* ?

    Suggest you change its name to:

    CSE HTML Simply-Finds-Potential-Issues-Based-On-Real-World-Browsers.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Apr 17, 2007
    #15
  16. "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:hRaVh.53663$...
    > Albert Wiersch wrote:
    >
    >> CSE HTML Validator doesn't claim pages to be "valid". ...

    >
    > Well! Then why do you name it CSE HTML *Validator* ?


    Because it finds problems in web pages, which is what people want when they
    look for a validator.

    >
    > Suggest you change its name to:
    >
    > CSE HTML Simply-Finds-Potential-Issues-Based-On-Real-World-Browsers.


    I think that's a bit too long. :)

    Albert
    Albert Wiersch, Apr 17, 2007
    #16
  17. K.

    Ben C Guest

    On 2007-04-17, Albert Wiersch <> wrote:
    >
    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    > news:hRaVh.53663$...
    >> Albert Wiersch wrote:
    >>
    >>> CSE HTML Validator doesn't claim pages to be "valid". ...

    >>
    >> Well! Then why do you name it CSE HTML *Validator* ?

    >
    > Because it finds problems in web pages, which is what people want when they
    > look for a validator.
    >
    >>
    >> Suggest you change its name to:
    >>
    >> CSE HTML Simply-Finds-Potential-Issues-Based-On-Real-World-Browsers.

    >
    > I think that's a bit too long. :)


    Something like "HTML Lint" would be the traditional name for such a
    tool.
    Ben C, Apr 17, 2007
    #17
  18. "Albert Wiersch" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    > news:hRaVh.53663$...
    > > Albert Wiersch wrote:
    > >
    > >> CSE HTML Validator doesn't claim pages to be "valid". ...

    > >
    > > Well! Then why do you name it CSE HTML *Validator* ?

    >
    > Because it finds problems in web pages, which is what people want when

    they
    > look for a validator.
    >


    No. What I (at least) want is for a validator to tell me what's valid.

    --
    Richard
    Richard Rundle, Apr 18, 2007
    #18
  19. "Richard Rundle" <> wrote in message
    news:D...
    >
    > No. What I (at least) want is for a validator to tell me what's valid.


    If you want to know if a document is technically valid, then you can use the
    included DTD based validator in the standard and pro editions of CSE HTML
    Validator. Of course if you only use that, then you could be missing quite a
    few issues that can't be found by a DTD based validator.

    Albert
    Albert Wiersch, Apr 19, 2007
    #19
  20. K.

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 13 Apr, 16:43, "Albert Wiersch" <>
    wrote:
    > "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote in messagenews:yTvTh.35223$...


    > > Unfortunately, he used a product that is dishonestly sold as a validator
    > > but isn't, the infamous "CSE HTML Validator". His confusion is
    > > understandable; the phoney validator's business isn't.

    >
    > It's only "phony" if you strictly limit your definition...


    So Albert, your snake oil "validator" is perfect and the OP didn't
    really have a problem?
    What was it - evil Finnish Pixies?
    Andy Dingley, Apr 19, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lorne Cameron

    Unwanted cellpadding in IE6 tables?

    Lorne Cameron, Jun 26, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,952
    Jacqui or (maybe) Pete
    Jun 27, 2003
  2. Gnarlodious
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    7,400
    Gnarlodious
    Apr 10, 2004
  3. Todd Cary
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    10,498
    kchayka
    Sep 18, 2004
  4. Jan Faerber

    cellpadding - css

    Jan Faerber, Dec 7, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    31,928
    Michael Fesser
    Dec 8, 2004
  5. =?UTF-8?B?TWFydGluIFDDtnBwaW5n?=

    cellspacing und cellpadding

    =?UTF-8?B?TWFydGluIFDDtnBwaW5n?=, Aug 13, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,571
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_P=F6pping?=
    Aug 14, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page