Order and placement of tags

T

Tony Cooper

I use html to do ads for eBay, and tables work best for me. My
problem is figuring out where the tags go to achieve the right effect.

Following is an abbreviated format:

<font face= "arial, helvetica">
<table border=5>
<tr>
<th height= 50>
<font size=6>
TEXT - HEADING TITLE
</font>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<img src="http://xxxxxxxxxx.jpg">
<td>
</tr>
<td>
<font size=3>
<blockquote>
<b>
TEXT - ITEM DESCRIPTION

(balance snipped)

I would like to set the width of the entire table to be 90% of the
screen of anyone that views the ad regardless of the screen settings.

Where do I put: width=90%?
 
C

Chris Leonard

Where do I put: width=90%?<table border=5 width="90%">

If this is already in a table however (nested) it won't work.
 
E

EightNineThree

Tony Cooper said:
I use html to do ads for eBay, and tables work best for me. My
problem is figuring out where the tags go to achieve the right effect.

Following is an abbreviated format:

<font face= "arial, helvetica">
<table border=5>
<tr>
<th height= 50>
<font size=6>
TEXT - HEADING TITLE
</font>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<img src="http://xxxxxxxxxx.jpg">
<td>
</tr>
<td>
<font size=3>
<blockquote>
<b>
TEXT - ITEM DESCRIPTION

(balance snipped)

I would like to set the width of the entire table to be 90% of the
screen of anyone that views the ad regardless of the screen settings.

Where do I put: width=90%?

You've got bigger problems with that table than where you should put the
width attribute.
 
T

Tony Cooper

You get what you pay for.
If you want to pay me what my dayjob pays me, I'll teach you how to write
HTML.

I understand this. However, I did not solicit *your* help. By
posting here, I'm asking that anyone that chooses to volunteer to
provide some help. If you don't choose to do so, that's fine.

There are some that choose to do so, and some that choose not to.
Then, there's you that chooses to waste your time and mine being a
smart-ass. I can out-smart-ass you anytime. If you want lessons,
I'll set a rate for you. It'll be a rather high rate since it doesn't
appear that you'll be a quick learner.

That's a pretty basic site. I was working at that level a couple of
months ago when I started. I can Google up more specific help, but
sometimes a few specific pointers can be helpful for a specific
question. It saves me some time and allows me to reply to surly,
puffed-up people with an exaggerated sense of self-importance.
 
E

EightNineThree

Tony Cooper said:
That's a pretty basic site. I was working at that level a couple of
months ago when I started. I can Google up more specific help, but
sometimes a few specific pointers can be helpful for a specific
question. It saves me some time and allows me to reply to surly,
puffed-up people with an exaggerated sense of self-importance.

You were working on that level a couple of months ago, eh?
Then why is it that the snippet you posted here is so fucked up?

Here are some hints, sparky:

1. First and foremost, unless you think this is still 1997, you shouldn't be
dictating presentation via HTML. HTML is for structure and thankfully the
standards bodies have begun to get control of the problem of idiots abusing
their creation. They've now begun removing presentational elements and
attributes from the specification(s) in favor of CSS.
2. <font> is one such deprecated element.
3. <th> denotes a table heading. Is this a data table? If so, where are the
<thead> and <tbody> elements and the appropriate scope/heading attributes?
4. "height" is a deprecated and mostly unsupported attribute of <td> and
<th>
5. If you intend on creating a heading effect with your <font size=6> why
not be a big boy and use the more appropriate <h1> element?
6. <font size=3> is the default size of text anyway, so why bother bloating
the markup with it?
7. The <blockquote> has a purpose, although I'm sure you're abusing it to
indent text.
8. <b> is deprecated. If you wish that section of text to have emphasis,
use <strong>. If you're trying to create a heading, use the appropriate
<hx> element. If you just want fat text, use CSS
9. Remember - despite how basic those links were that I gave you, you're the
moron who doesn't know where to put your "width" attribute.

Get your pea brain past these items and you can take the plastic sheets off
your bed tonight.

One last note. You said, "I can out-smart-ass you anytime. If you want
lessons, I'll set a rate for you."

You need to be *smart* to be a "smart-ass" and I'm afraid you just don't
qualify.
 
T

Tony Cooper

You were working on that level a couple of months ago, eh?
Then why is it that the snippet you posted here is so fucked up?

If you would have read the post, the snippet was intended only to list
the order of instructions so I could ask where - in that order - a
particular tag should be.

Here's an example of what I do:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2555283933&category=20114&rd=1

As I stated in another post, I only use HTML to prepare eBay ads. An
eBay ad has a shelf life of 7 days, it has to be concise and present
the information so the viewer takes it all in at once, and it
shouldn't be distracting in either layout or content. Simple is best.
Here are some hints, sparky:

1. First and foremost, unless you think this is still 1997, you shouldn't be
dictating presentation via HTML. HTML is for structure and thankfully the
standards bodies have begun to get control of the problem of idiots abusing
their creation. They've now begun removing presentational elements and
attributes from the specification(s) in favor of CSS.

It's best to know what someone is trying to do before you pontificate.
CSS has its place, but simple HTML works for 30-40 line presentations
with a couple of graphics, some text, and no links or buttons. I may
have 20 or 30 of these up at once, and in 7 days they're history.
They are only viewed by, maybe, 75 people.
2. <font> is one such deprecated element.
3. <th> denotes a table heading. Is this a data table? If so, where are the
<thead> and <tbody> elements and the appropriate scope/heading attributes?
4. "height" is a deprecated and mostly unsupported attribute of <td> and
<th>

The other post said that tables work best for what I do. I set up a
template, pop the appropriate image (with the image done to the same
dimensions (480 px wide by x high) for one, and 480 by 200 for the
smaller one) in the appropriate row and data, change a bit of copy in
one data place, and use boilerplate in the second. Each ad has the
same appearance.
5. If you intend on creating a heading effect with your <font size=6> why
not be a big boy and use the more appropriate <h1> element?

I don't know the difference. A "why" would be required for me to
change.
6. <font size=3> is the default size of text anyway, so why bother bloating
the markup with it?

Bloat with 40 lines?
7. The <blockquote> has a purpose, although I'm sure you're abusing it to
indent text.

It works. I don't know of a different way. It shortens the text
line, makes the copy more readable, and gives me margins. If there's
a better way, with a "why" attached", I'll try it.
8. <b> is deprecated. If you wish that section of text to have emphasis,
use <strong>. If you're trying to create a heading, use the appropriate
<hx> element. If you just want fat text, use CSS
9. Remember - despite how basic those links were that I gave you, you're the
moron who doesn't know where to put your "width" attribute.

Yep. I missed that part. The image dictates the width of the table.
I don't like constraining the image by dimensions (480 x 280) or
(=50%) so I crop the image in Photoshop7 to the size I want to use.

I use a 1024 x 768 resolution on my screen, but I was looking for a
way to make sure my ad doesn't distort for someone with an 800 x 600
resolution.
Get your pea brain past these items and you can take the plastic sheets off
your bed tonight.
One last note. You said, "I can out-smart-ass you anytime. If you want
lessons, I'll set a rate for you."

You need to be *smart* to be a "smart-ass" and I'm afraid you just don't
qualify.

Smart's a relative thing. I'm smart enough to know that I need to
find out what someone wants to do before I start spouting off. You
want to give directions for a month long safari when someone just
wants to find the closest grocery store.

I'm smart enough to know that HTML and CSS are merely tools and you
don't need a bulldozer to dig a hole deep enough to bury a teacup in
it. Complicated is not better when simple works.

These are gaps in your smarts that probably match the gaps in your
smile.

Now, if you want to offer improvements on what I actually do, based on
the sample I've offered, I'd appreciate it. If not, go on back to the
mirror and admire yourself.

Alt.html is not a help forum. I know this. However, many of the
postings are questions about how to do something. I'm not asking to
be taught HTML or CSS, but asking about some specific things. Some
people do like to provide answers. I'm looking for that type of
person, and not someone that wants to brag about his day job and imply
he's an expert in some field.




..
 
J

Joel Shepherd

EightNineThree said:
8. <b> is deprecated.

Is it? For what specification. Last I checked (20 seconds ago) it was
not deprecated in HTML 4 Strict.
If you wish that section of text to have emphasis, use <strong>.

As has been discussed elsewhere (CIWAS for one), <i> and <b> have
legitimate uses which do not include emphasis.
 
E

EightNineThree

Joel Shepherd said:
Is it? For what specification. Last I checked (20 seconds ago) it was
not deprecated in HTML 4 Strict.

You're correct. I made an assumption based on the fact that so many similar
elements and attributes have been deprecated.
As has been discussed elsewhere (CIWAS for one), <i> and <b> have
legitimate uses which do not include emphasis.

What possible purposes could <b> have? I see these three possibilities
1. Emphasis - in which case <strong> is better
2. (incorrect) Defining text as a header - in which case, the proper heading
element should be used
3. Just plain old fat text - in which case, CSS is more appropriate.
 
J

Joel Shepherd

EightNineThree said:
What possible purposes could <b> have?

Here's the thread, which deals primarily with <i>, if anyone's interested:

<http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&[email protected]&rnum=1&prev=/&frame=on>

For <b> ... Had to think about that. One example might be in a
reference document about a programming. One common convention is for
reserved words to be presented in bold. The argument -- identical to
the one in the thread above -- is that the bolding the word *is*
semantically important, as it denotes keyword usage. "for", as in "for
(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)", is very different from "for pete's sake,
stop cracking your knuckles!" "For foreach is frequently preferred to
for for foreach can take advantage of an optimized iterator
implementation." To make any sense of that, you need to know that
second "for" is a language keyword: it's a semantically important bit
of text.
Just plain old fat text - in which case, CSS is more appropriate.

But you do need to ask *why* the text is fat, not to mention plain and
old.

The problem with <span> in this case is that <span> simply denotes
"this is inline data". <i> and <b> are not much better, except they
can indicate "this data is semantically significant but there is no
adequate markup for it".

All that said ... I just reread the HTML spec on <span> and was
surprised to see:

"Since HTML does not include elements that identify objects such as
"client", "telephone number", "email address", etc., we use DIV and
SPAN to achieve the desired structural and presentational effects."

That -- using span and div to achieve "structural", as in semantically
significant, effects -- is news to me.

Too bad the spec doesn't offer similar commentary for <b> and <i>. But
I stand by my argument above.
 
T

Tony Cooper

Simple is always best, regardless of the purpose of the page.
Therefore, <h1> is more simple, more correct, and even less effort than
<font size=6>

So your high-paid day job breaks down to knowing two ways to making
type look larger on the screen, and having a preference for one that
is a few keystrokes shorter?
Since you create so many of these, and do them so often, you'd be best
advised to learn how to make it right.

Watch my lips. I use a couple of templates and just change a few
items.

I note that you say I don't do it "right", but can't find anything to
say that is wrong.
"Tables work best" when it is only tables that you (barely) know.

Yep. You'd like to say they don't work, but you can't find anything
that doesn't get the job done. You're just hand-waving.
<h1> says: "This is the primary heading for this document"

And the benefit is.....? You were confused by the lack of a
designated primary heading in an ad that fits on a single screen?
<font size=6> says: "These are some really big words"

No, it says this is a larger font size than <font size= 3>. Works as
well on short words as it does on big words.

<p style="margin: 35px"> does the same thing and it is structurally correct.

You're good at this? You think? <blockquote> formats until
</blockquote>. Your suggestion has to be repeated each paragraph.
You just got through whining about bloat, and you want to add a line
for each paragraph?
In fact, the effect you're trying to create (using the example above) would
probably be best handled by padding.

Yeah, I could. I could use six, or I could use half-a-dozen.

Look....I don't want to come in here and get into an argument when all
I wanted was an answer to a simple question. This is your turf, not
mine. But, you started out in full asshole mode, you haven't offered
a suggestion that's worth anything (except two ways to make type look
big), what you have offered is inconsistent, and you make vague
hand-waving statements like "structurally correct". Why do you
bother?
 
E

EightNineThree

Tony Cooper said:
So your high-paid day job breaks down to knowing two ways to making
type look larger on the screen, and having a preference for one that
is a few keystrokes shorter?

My high paid day job revolves around more than hocking silverware on EBay,
you can bet on that.
I manage the online corporate identity and e-commerce efforts of one of the
largest credit unions in the United States.

You must be confused about your role in this exchange.
You've come to this newsgroup to ask a question about HTML.
You've gotten information about how to author correct HTML.
If you do not want correct information, but would rather use hackish
workarounds, then go back to using your apparent trial-and-error method of
learning.

Some people care about doing things the right way. It is quite apparent that
you do not fit that description.
 
T

Tony Cooper

My high paid day job revolves around more than hocking silverware on EBay,
you can bet on that.

Nor does mine. I'm selling things I've inherited from three
generations of pack rats and antique collectors. I've given my
married children what they want, and I'm having an "on-line garage
sale" to clear out the rest.
I manage the online corporate identity and e-commerce efforts of one of the
largest credit unions in the United States.

How come you don't give out toasters any more? That e-commerce
thing....spam? You work for a Nigerian credit union?
You must be confused about your role in this exchange.
You've come to this newsgroup to ask a question about HTML.
You've gotten information about how to author correct HTML.

Not from you. I did receive some help, but if you were capable of it
you managed to conceal it.
If you do not want correct information, but would rather use hackish
workarounds, then go back to using your apparent trial-and-error method of
learning.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Still noted is that the only hackish error you
could find is not using Big Type On The Screen, Alternate #2.
Some people care about doing things the right way. It is quite apparent that
you do not fit that description.

Some people have something useful to offer, and some people just strut
around saying nothing like it means something.
 
C

Chris Morris

Joel Shepherd said:
For <b> ... Had to think about that. One example might be in a
reference document about a programming. One common convention is for
reserved words to be presented in bold. The argument -- identical to
the one in the thread above -- is that the bolding the word *is*
semantically important, as it denotes keyword usage. "for", as in "for
(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)", is very different from "for pete's sake,
stop cracking your knuckles!" "For foreach is frequently preferred to
for for foreach can take advantage of an optimized iterator
implementation." To make any sense of that, you need to know that
second "for" is a language keyword: it's a semantically important bit
of text.

Yes, though I wouldn't use <b> for that.

For <code>foreach</code> is frequently preferred to <code>for</code>
for <code>foreach</code> can ...

Actually, I think my preferred solution would be to reword the
sentence so that it made more sense anyway. Neither <b> nor <code> is
guaranteed to be displayed differently, after all. IMO, if the text
alone isn't clear, adding markup to clarify it doesn't solve the
problem, it just masks it for some users.

<code><b>for</b> (;;)</code> I think is a good way of doing syntax
highlighting, though. Given that this sort of thing may often be
viewed in text mode (anyone know a CSS-capable text browser - I
haven't found one yet), I think I prefer <b> to <span
style="font-weight: bold;"> (or id/class equivalents).
 

Ask a Question

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

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

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,906
Latest member
SkinfixSkintag

Latest Threads

Top