problems with table layout

Discussion in 'HTML' started by richard, Oct 29, 2007.

  1. richard

    richard Guest

    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?
    richard, Oct 29, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. richard wrote:
    > 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...

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Oct 29, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. richard

    richard Guest

    On Oct 29, 9:48 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <>
    wrote:
    > richard wrote:
    > > 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...
    >


    Read the last line.
    richard, Oct 29, 2007
    #3
  4. richard wrote:
    > On Oct 29, 9:48 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <>
    > wrote:


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

    >
    > Read the last line.
    >


    A solution can be found on a webpage.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Oct 29, 2007
    #4
  5. richard

    richard Guest

    On Oct 29, 4:21 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <>
    wrote:
    > richard wrote:
    > > On Oct 29, 9:48 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <>
    > > wrote:
    > >> And we can actually see this page at URL...

    >
    > > Read the last line.

    >
    > 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.
    richard, Oct 30, 2007
    #5
  6. richard wrote:
    > On Oct 29, 4:21 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <>
    > wrote:
    >> richard wrote:
    >>> On Oct 29, 9:48 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> And we can actually see this page at URL...
    >>> Read the last line.

    >> 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.
    >


    Okay. Well good luck with that.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Oct 30, 2007
    #6
  7. richard

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    On Oct 30, 1:34 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <>
    wrote:
    > richard wrote:
    > > On Oct 29, 4:21 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <>
    > > wrote:
    > >> richard wrote:
    > >>> On Oct 29, 9:48 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <>
    > >>> wrote:
    > >>>> And we can actually see this page at URL...
    > >>> Read the last line.
    > >> 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.

    >
    > Okay. Well good luck with that.
    >

    And people wonder why the regulars in these groups get pissed off with
    a lot of the newbies!.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
    Chaddy2222, Oct 30, 2007
    #7
  8. On Oct 29, 10:47 am, richard <> wrote:
    > 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:
    Travis Newbury, Oct 30, 2007
    #8
  9. richard

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 29 Oct, 14:47, richard <> wrote:
    > 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.
    Andy Dingley, Oct 30, 2007
    #9
  10. Andy Dingley wrote:

    > 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 <>

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Oct 30, 2007
    #10
  11. richard

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 30 Oct, 13:10, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    <> wrote:

    > 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>
    Andy Dingley, Oct 30, 2007
    #11
  12. Chaddy2222 wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Oct 30, 2007
    #12
  13. Andy Dingley wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Oct 30, 2007
    #13
  14. richard

    richard Guest

    On Oct 29, 11:31 pm, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
    > wrote:
    > On Oct 30, 1:34 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > richard wrote:
    > > > On Oct 29, 4:21 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <>
    > > > wrote:
    > > >> richard wrote:
    > > >>> On Oct 29, 9:48 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <>
    > > >>> wrote:
    > > >>>> And we can actually see this page at URL...
    > > >>> Read the last line.
    > > >> 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.

    >
    > > Okay. Well good luck with that.

    >
    > And people wonder why the regulars in these groups get pissed off with
    > a lot of the newbies!.
    > --
    > Regards Chad.http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz



    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, Oct 30, 2007
    #14
  15. richard

    richard Guest

    On Oct 30, 6:09 am, Andy Dingley <> wrote:
    > On 29 Oct, 14:47, richard <> wrote:
    >
    > > 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.




    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, Oct 30, 2007
    #15
  16. richard

    richard Guest

    On Oct 30, 7:10 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    <> wrote:
    > Andy Dingley wrote:
    > > 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 <>
    >



    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?
    richard, Oct 30, 2007
    #16
  17. richard wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Oct 30, 2007
    #17
  18. richard

    Bone Ur Guest

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

    >> And people wonder why the regulars in these groups get pissed off with
    >> a lot of the newbies!.
    >> --
    >> Regards Chad.http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

    >
    >
    > 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.

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
    Bone Ur, Oct 30, 2007
    #18
  19. Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    > Chaddy2222 wrote:
    >
    >> 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.


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

    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky the Shark, Oct 30, 2007
    #19
  20. richard

    dorayme Guest

    In article <4fea5$472733fa$40cba7b6$>,
    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > Chaddy2222 wrote:
    >
    > > 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.



    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.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Oct 30, 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. Eric
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    711
    clintonG
    Dec 24, 2004
  2. Guybrush Threepwood

    Table-based layout to CSS layout

    Guybrush Threepwood, Jun 6, 2006, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,003
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    572
    John Timney \(MVP\)
    Jun 19, 2006
  4. Habib

    Css-Layout vs Table-Layout

    Habib, Jun 19, 2006, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,010
    Wÿrm
    Jun 20, 2006
  5. sso
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    589
    Roedy Green
    Apr 30, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page