Problem with webpage (table cropped)

[Peter Williams]

Hi All,

The webpage here:

http://pewtas.googlepages.com/delphi

has a problem which appears when the page is viewed with Firefox
browser (latest version for Windows). Note that the file appears okay
when viewed using IE6.

The problem is that the table is cropped vertically in the last (3rd)
column.

Can someone please debug the page and suggest a correction to fix this
bug?!? I will be very grateful ))

--
Regards,
PEW ;-)
Delete SILLY BOY to get email address.

Sandy Bay, Hobart, Tas, AU.

 

[Sally Thompson]

Hi All,

The webpage here:

http://pewtas.googlepages.com/delphi

has a problem which appears when the page is viewed with Firefox
browser (latest version for Windows). Note that the file appears okay
when viewed using IE6.

The problem is that the table is cropped vertically in the last (3rd)
column.

Can someone please debug the page and suggest a correction to fix this
bug?!? I will be very grateful ))

If you change
#container {
width: 718px; ... }
to
#container {
width: 100%; ... }

you will allow space for your third column (or make it 98% if you prefer).

 

[mbstevens]

If you change
#container {
width: 718px; ... }
to
#container {
width: 100%; ... }

you will allow space for your third column (or make it 98% if you prefer).

That loo<p> </p> ks like the solution to me.
I would also mention that if the op is going to use a hundred or so
lines of CSS, he shouldn't be mixing in code like this --

<center> <table border="10" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" width="70%">
<tbody><tr bgcolor="#ffff99"> <td>

-- nor like this --

<p> </p>
<p align="left"><b> </b></p>

-- all deprecated markup and spacer kludges that CSS is designed, in
part, to get out of your markup.

Don't declare a doc type unless you can validate to it.
The op shouldn't make the claim of Xhtml strict in the doctype
unless the code actually validates to that doc type. See here:
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://pewtas.googlepages.com/delphi

And the validator refuses to even look at the CSS until the XML is
validated.

Since the op is using firefox, I suggest that he download and install
the web developer extension for that browser. It will be a
big help.

 

[mbstevens]

That loo<p> </p> ks like the solution to me.

I have no idea how I managed to do that. The
line should read

That looks like the solution to me.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

If you change
#container {
width: 718px; ... }
to
#container {
width: 100%; ... }

you will allow space for your third column (or make it 98% if you prefer).

then in the mix:

#main-content {
overflow: hidden;
}

( translation: means anything within main-content that is larger than
main-content gets cropped! )

Much conflicting CSS and then overridden again inline! Use of
pixel-fixed containers...enlarge the text and see what happens!

My advice is strip out all CSS, fix your markup and rid any deprecated
or presentational markup. Then rebuild your styling from scratch and
resist all the hacks...and constrained DIV's

 

[dorayme]

I have no idea how I managed to do that. The
line should read

That looks like the solution to me.

....even I guessed that. Don't worry mb...

But, talking of old movies, saw Tex Ritter and a young Rita
Hayworth in Trouble in Texas last night. If you need to see a
cowboy film that shows off just about everything about the skills
of cowboys and rodeo and dancing and every other American thing,
this is the one. And, just by the way, incredibly, Tex talks a
bit like Heath Ledger in Brokeback mountain. It is not what he
says, not even particularly the accent but the delivery, you have
to see and hear both. And what is particularly noteworthy is that
Ledger put great effort into talking that way to show how
difficult it was to express himself in the world, whereas Tex was
just your regular cheery gal respecting and lovin' cowboy hero.

 

[mbstevens]

And what is particularly noteworthy is that
Ledger put great effort into talking that way to show how
difficult it was to express himself in the world, whereas Tex was
just your regular cheery gal respecting and lovin' cowboy hero.

It seems to be all you need to do to get elected, too, no matter
what your level of competence.

Of course, Tex only kissed his horse. It was the rule in old
westerns.

 

[ironcorona]

That loo<p> </p> ks like the solution to me.
I would also mention that if the op is going to use a hundred or so
lines of CSS, he shouldn't be mixing in code like this --

<center> <table border="10" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" width="70%">
<tbody><tr bgcolor="#ffff99"> <td>

-- nor like this --

<p> </p>
<p align="left"><b> </b></p>

-- all deprecated markup and spacer kludges that CSS is designed, in
part, to get out of your markup.

Don't declare a doc type unless you can validate to it.
The op shouldn't make the claim of Xhtml strict in the doctype
unless the code actually validates to that doc type. See here:
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://pewtas.googlepages.com/delphi

This is a googlepages page. The OP might not have any control over much
of the html. Even when you're using the html view in googlepages
creator when you save it, it will automatically save it the way it
wants. Googlepages is even worse than frontpage for nice clean html.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Don't declare a doc type unless you can validate to it.

Why not? Of course it would be theoretically incorrect, but why bother about
such issues when people use theoretically incorrect constructs in much more
serious issues (like violating RFC 1036)?

On the practical side, using a DOCTYPE declaration that is one of those
mentioned in HTML specifications prevents browsers from applying
intentionally wrong processing rules ("quirks mode").

On the theoretical side, omitting a DOCTYPE declaration from a syntactically
malformed document does not make it any more valid or correct HTML document.