problems with table layout

[richard]

I am trying out a couple of layouts for presenting some information in
table format. Basically, two tables side by side.

Table 1: 3 rows, one column fixed width.
table 2: A calendar format with 3 rows.

In FF they are displayed as I want them. Even if I include an overflow
to force a horizontal scrollbar. Ok I know. But if horizontal
scrollbars are not desired, then why do we have them?
In IE the overflow is totally ignored.

Should I happen to have in table 1, a 4th line of text, then the <hr>
I use as a seperator, shows up floating beside table 1, not underneath
it as it should.
Easily fixed with a <br> but I feel that should not be necessary.

In IE, A horizontal scroll bar is not displayed until the data is
forced way beyond the edge unlike in FF. Then table 2 drops below
table 1 which is not where I want it.


In another format, I simply place table 2 under table 1. Which is ok
but just doesn't look right.


Anyone have a site that discusses this problem and how to work around
it so that the browsers are satisfied and the tables show as I want?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I am trying out a couple of layouts for presenting some information in
table format. Basically, two tables side by side.

Table 1: 3 rows, one column fixed width.
table 2: A calendar format with 3 rows.

In FF they are displayed as I want them. Even if I include an overflow
to force a horizontal scrollbar. Ok I know. But if horizontal
scrollbars are not desired, then why do we have them?
In IE the overflow is totally ignored.

Should I happen to have in table 1, a 4th line of text, then the <hr>
I use as a seperator, shows up floating beside table 1, not underneath
it as it should.
Easily fixed with a <br> but I feel that should not be necessary.

In IE, A horizontal scroll bar is not displayed until the data is
forced way beyond the edge unlike in FF. Then table 2 drops below
table 1 which is not where I want it.


In another format, I simply place table 2 under table 1. Which is ok
but just doesn't look right.

And we can actually see this page at URL...

 

[richard]

And we can actually see this page at URL...

Read the last line.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

On Oct 29, 9:48 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <[email protected]>
wrote:

Read the last line.

A solution can be found on a webpage.

 

[richard]

A solution can be found on a webpage.

As well as reading. It would appear that this is an issue with IE7
itself. The scrolling as desired will take place but only under
certain circumstances.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

As well as reading. It would appear that this is an issue with IE7
itself. The scrolling as desired will take place but only under
certain circumstances.

Okay. Well good luck with that.

 

[Chaddy2222]

Okay. Well good luck with that.

And people wonder why the regulars in these groups get pissed off with
a lot of the newbies!.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I am trying out a couple of layouts for presenting some information in
table format. Basically, two tables side by side....
> Anyone have a site that discusses this problem and how to work around
it so that the browsers are satisfied and the tables show as I want?

The solution is a simple one. You can find it at this URL:

 

[Andy Dingley]

I am trying out a couple of layouts for presenting some information in
table format. Basically, two tables side by side.

So this is _NOT_ a question about laying out <table>s, it's about how
to lay out two plain old HTML boxes next to each other. So use CSS and
do it with float. This isn't easy, and it's certainly not as easy as
people think to start out with. However a very good tutorial is over
here:
<http://brainjar.com/css/positioning/>


Be warned that many newsgroups (for obscure but excellent historical
reasons) have a real problem with new or unknown posters called
"richard". The slightest sign of forgiveable naivety (not posting URLs
to your work so far isn't popular) is likely to see you labelled as a
total idiot and ignored. As you also appear to post to trucking
newsgroups, it's probably justified. If you post to trucking
newsgroups you'll probably understand why, even if you don't deserve
it.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Be warned that many newsgroups (for obscure but excellent historical
reasons) have a real problem with new or unknown posters called
"richard". The slightest sign of forgiveable naivety (not posting URLs
to your work so far isn't popular) is likely to see you labelled as a
total idiot and ignored. As you also appear to post to trucking
newsgroups, it's probably justified. If you post to trucking
newsgroups you'll probably understand why, even if you don't deserve
it.

This "richard" is of course Bullis.

From: richard <[email protected]>

 

[Andy Dingley]

This "richard" is of course Bullis.

<sigh>
I know 8-(

I'm just trying to be a good little Wikipedian
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith>

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

And people wonder why the regulars in these groups get pissed off with
a lot of the newbies!.

Yeah, I was honestly going to try to help him, but I do not have the
patience of Job.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Be warned that many newsgroups (for obscure but excellent historical
reasons) have a real problem with new or unknown posters called
"richard". The slightest sign of forgiveable naivety (not posting URLs
to your work so far isn't popular) is likely to see you labelled as a
total idiot and ignored. As you also appear to post to trucking
newsgroups, it's probably justified. If you post to trucking
newsgroups you'll probably understand why, even if you don't deserve
it.

Damn! It is "Richard the Stupid"! Ah, next time I have to look at the
source more carefully. I feel sorry for the poor folks named Richard
with this guy's notoriety so prevalent.

 

[richard]

And people wonder why the regulars in these groups get pissed off with
a lot of the newbies!.

A newbie I am not. It's that I have not posted into this group for
quite some time.
My last trucking job did not give me a lot of free time to play with
online.

 

[richard]

So this is _NOT_ a question about laying out <table>s, it's about how
to lay out two plain old HTML boxes next to each other. So use CSS and
do it with float. This isn't easy, and it's certainly not as easy as
people think to start out with. However a very good tutorial is over
here:
<http://brainjar.com/css/positioning/>

Be warned that many newsgroups (for obscure but excellent historical
reasons) have a real problem with new or unknown posters called
"richard". The slightest sign of forgiveable naivety (not posting URLs
to your work so far isn't popular) is likely to see you labelled as a
total idiot and ignored. As you also appear to post to trucking
newsgroups, it's probably justified. If you post to trucking
newsgroups you'll probably understand why, even if you don't deserve
it.

Not quite right. The issue was over scrolling, which as I found out
later had to with the ignorance of IE7 and nothing with what I was
doing.

 

[richard]

This "richard" is of course Bullis.

From: richard <[email protected]>

Brilliant deduction Dr. Watson.. Precisley the reason why I chose that
addy. So that people would not have to second guess who it was. Which
is also a spam trap addy. Reply to it, I don't care. I nev er read the
mail in it.

3 guesses as to who you are in real life. As you only seem to appear
whenever a certain other poster appears. Coincidence?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

3 guesses as to who you are in real life. As you only seem to appear
whenever a certain other poster appears. Coincidence?

That is not so at all.

 

[Bone Ur]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:43:41 GMT
richard scribed:

A newbie I am not. It's that I have not posted into this group for
quite some time.
My last trucking job did not give me a lot of free time to play with
online.

Maybe not, but I think the point is that your time would have been lessened
by including a url in the first place.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Yeah, I was honestly going to try to help him, but I do not have the
patience of Job.

The good ol' GG filter took care of things, here, except for most of the
responses (the ones that weren't GGers themselves).

 

[dorayme]

Yeah, I was honestly going to try to help him, but I do not have the
patience of Job.

But surely your comparison beyond that is a bit exaggerated? He
put up with a great deal indeed. His family is taken away by the
devil, he is told lies about their fate, he is covered in skin
abscesses. He holds out from blaming God for hs sufferings in
spite of believing that he has done nothing to deserve his
misfortunes.

Jonathan, the only thing I can think of to compare you to Job is
that he too, in his Land of Uz, was on dialup - though he might
have had, as a special, a dedicated broadband connection to God.

Anyway, bless you, my son.