Dreamweaver site building...

[Montgomery BOO...URNS]

Hello again all:

I have yet another question pertaining to Dreamweaver. I started to build a
website completely from scratch. I could define my tables and change the
background color for each table and when I do a preview in Internet
Explorer, everything looks fine but if I preview in any other browser I have
a problem with one table in particular that is supposed to fill out the
browser viewing area but it only fills 1/4 of the viewing area. How do I
fix this?

Thanks again.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Montgomery BOO...URNS quothed:

Hello again all:

I have yet another question pertaining to Dreamweaver. I started to build a
website completely from scratch. I could define my tables and change the
background color for each table and when I do a preview in Internet
Explorer, everything looks fine but if I preview in any other browser I have
a problem with one table in particular that is supposed to fill out the
browser viewing area but it only fills 1/4 of the viewing area. How do I
fix this?

Do a screen-capture of the table and make it 4 times as big.

 

[Hywel Jenkins]

Hello again all:

I have yet another question pertaining to Dreamweaver. I started to build a
website completely from scratch. I could define my tables and change the
background color for each table and when I do a preview in Internet
Explorer, everything looks fine but if I preview in any other browser I have
a problem with one table in particular that is supposed to fill out the
browser viewing area but it only fills 1/4 of the viewing area. How do I
fix this?

Learn to code manually.

 

[Adrienne]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Montgomery BOO...URNS"

Hello again all:

I have yet another question pertaining to Dreamweaver. I started to
build a website completely from scratch. I could define my tables and
change the background color for each table and when I do a preview in
Internet Explorer, everything looks fine but if I preview in any other
browser I have a problem with one table in particular that is supposed
to fill out the browser viewing area but it only fills 1/4 of the
viewing area. How do I fix this?

Thanks again.

Stop abusing tables. Tables are for tabular data, not pixel precise
positioning of elements that is, as you have seen, doomed to fail.

Of course, it would help if you provided a URL.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Stop abusing tables. Tables are for tabular data, not pixel precise
positioning of elements that is, as you have seen, doomed to fail.

Actually tables work rather well for pixel precise positioning in
virtually all cases. While not condoned by many in this forum, it does
continue to be how the corporate world deals with the web. So unless
one is independently wealthy and can turn down a job based on
principal, it seems to me it would be a wise idea to at least
understand how to do this.

Of course, it would help if you provided a URL.

This goes without saying. Mind you I am not disagreeing with your
statement, just offering a different point of view.

 

[Adrienne]

Actually tables work rather well for pixel precise positioning in
virtually all cases. While not condoned by many in this forum, it does
continue to be how the corporate world deals with the web. So unless
one is independently wealthy and can turn down a job based on
principal, it seems to me it would be a wise idea to at least
understand how to do this.

I agree with you here. In some cases, if the tables are not nested, that
is the best policy. But, like my 20 month old, once you let him have
something, he wants _more_.

I inherited a corporate project once, written in ASP, that had nesting five
levels deep. To make matters worse, it was like:
response.write "<td>"
response.write "<b>"
response.wrtte "<table>"
response.write "<tr>"
response.write "<td>"
response.write "&nbsp;"
response.write "</td>"
response.write "<td>"

It was just awful, not even tag soup, it was spaghetti soup!

This goes without saying. Mind you I am not disagreeing with your
statement, just offering a different point of view.

I hate to sound like I'm harping here, but, I figure, if we can get 'em
away from table abuse now, they won't have to go to TAA (Table Abusers
Anonymous) later.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Adrienne quothed:

I agree with you here. In some cases, if the tables are not nested, that
is the best policy. But, like my 20 month old, once you let him have
something, he wants _more_.

I inherited a corporate project once, written in ASP, that had nesting five
levels deep.

I just finished a page with 3 nested tables. It was the best solution,
it was the only solution, and it will validate in html 4.01 strict.
Furthermore, it works smoothly and robustly in the browsers. It also
compensates for an error in Mozilla. Has to do with vertical-centering
and inner justification - sans javascript.

When I get the online version up, I'll post the url if you're
interested.

Unless and until they get css straightened-out, tables are here to stay.

 

[Rguy84]

Actually tables work rather well for pixel precise positioning in
virtually all cases. While not condoned by many in this forum, it does
continue to be how the corporate world deals with the web. So unless
one is independently wealthy and can turn down a job based on
principal, it seems to me it would be a wise idea to at least
understand how to do this.

Uh no a lot of the time it is php/asp embedded, it just looks as it is
a table...

 

[Dan Mackay]

you have a good point there

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Dan Mackay quothed:

Where?

 

[Rguy84]

He was referring to me when I said when you do an include() in like PHP
you see a table not the include() command, this is due to when you look
at the source via the Net the script is ran.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Rguy84 quothed:

He was referring to me when I said when you do an include() in like PHP
you see a table not the include() command, this is due to when you look
at the source via the Net the script is ran.

Okay. It's good to know that he wasn't hallucinating or something.