Re: I have a problem with this:

[123Jim]

In file www.sheldonlg.com/temp.html There is a big space between the first
item on in the center on the top and second item. I don't know why that
is happening. Any help would be appreciated.

(There are no errors in validation and 34 of the same short-tag warning.
BTW, how do you get rid of that?)

Thanks for any help.

you have: clear: both;
in div.dataBlock3Center br

delete clear: both;
things improve .. but the labels get out of line ..

 

[123Jim]

I deleted it and there was no change in appearance nor problem.

I see that .. I must have deleted something else .. can't think what
unfortunately.

The problem I think is to do with the cascading nature of styles. for
example try removing clear: both; from the style applied to <br> in the
containing block labelled: class="panel-body"

Posters here think your markup is very complex .. I guess it is .. why is it
like that?

 

[123Jim]

..............................................
This example was taken from a much larger application. The other css
stuff handles other screens. If by "off" you mean in separate linked in
files, that is the way it is done the real application. I just have here
the "view source" for that page which shows the expanded css files.

remove clear: both; from

div.panel-body br {
clear: both;
}

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

This example was taken from a much larger application. The other css
stuff handles other screens. If by "off" you mean in separate linked
in files, that is the way it is done the real application. I just
have here the "view source" for that page which shows the expanded
css files.

While you are working on the project, why not remove the bogus HTML
comment markers from both the CSS and the JavaScript?
These: <!-- and -->
There are several sets of them in the CSS, all are errors. CSS comment
markers are: /* and */

In the JavaScript, those things haven't been necessary since maybe, um,
Netscape 3? Earlier?

Oh, and:
<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/...ning=0&uri=http://www.sheldonlg.com/temp.html>

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

All of those are not part of the code I am tasked to modify. On this
big application, the one thing I have learned from the past is only
change what I have been asked to change. (Yes, I agree with you, but
note that this is just an except of one page).

Ok, so pass it along to the people who do work on those parts.

It is an OLD app.

...and nobody is maintaining it any longer?

I validated _before_ putting it up here. There were 34 warning
messages, all of the "SHORTTAGS" variety.

Um... no, not really.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

On 4/29/2010 5:02 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
[no, he didn't...]

I ran into so many more problems with this formulation (such as major
problems when you narrowed the page and differences between IE and
Firefox) that I spoke to the boss. I convinced him to use tables.
He wanted to reserve the use of tables to only when there is actual
table of data being presented and not for formatting purposes.
Thankfully, he saw that a week of effort was not worth it.

You have "relational data" on your test.html page, as I see it. Tables
are appropriate. The labels and the data are related to each other.

I see you've updated (somewhat) your page. You now have nested tables
for columns of data. Why that? Why not use just one table with six
columns?

<td>Customer:</td><td>[data]</td><td>Name:</td<td>[data]</td><td>Search
Key:</td><td>[data]</td>

Saves a lot of confusing markup...

 

[Jenn]

That is what tables are FOR, presenting tabular data. They should never
be used for formatting.

Why? I use tables all the time in order to get a page to format exactly
like I want it to format.

 

[dorayme]

Why? I use tables all the time in order to get a page to format exactly
like I want it to format.

Here we go again, round and round the mulberry bush... which
reminds me, have I ever given my recipe for mulberry jam here?

 

[Neredbojias]

Why? I use tables all the time in order to get a page to format
exactly like I want it to format.

Actually, in some cases I use tables for formatting and not for
"tabular data", and the usage is quite valid in the broadest meaning of
the word. Don't listen to the pedants but alternate means *do* exist
for many of the things lotsa people misuse tables for.

 

[Jenn]

Let me Google that for you ...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tables+html+bad

Not trying to be sarcastic, Jenn. It's just that this is a topic that has
been discussed ad nauseum over the years and a simple search on your part
would have obviated yet another lengthy discussion about about it here.

I really don't care what google says about the subject, I was more
interested in why ya'll don't like to use tables. I've been coding for
14yrs or more and tables generally solve most formatting problems and they
are easier to use than CSS, while, I do like CSS, I'd never use it to format
an entire website willingly... ever........ I'd rather use CSS for style
sheets as far as formatting fonts, links, and such. Actually, I'd say tables
are my specialty.....

I've only been privy to this group for many a month, reading it off and on,
so while some of you may have discussed this topic ad nauseum, I have never
had that conversation with anyone before.

 

[Jenn]

Actually, in some cases I use tables for formatting and not for
"tabular data", and the usage is quite valid in the broadest meaning of
the word. Don't listen to the pedants but alternate means *do* exist
for many of the things lotsa people misuse tables for.

I use tables for everything that requires formatting a website. That's the
way it was done from the time I ever coded my first website. It's so simple
to use them and you can do just about anything with them.

 

[Jenn]

Here we go again, round and round the mulberry bush... which
reminds me, have I ever given my recipe for mulberry jam here?

okkkk ... who stuck a thorn in your foot? What's with the attitude?

 

[freemont]

I've only been privy to this group for many a month, reading it off and
on, so while some of you may have discussed this topic ad nauseum, I
have never had that conversation with anyone before.

Well let me try, then. I think Ed Googled the wrong thing.

<http://preview.tinyurl.com/33o6wdf> << GoogleGroups search of alt.html

The subject is old, old, old. Enough already. You wanna layout your pages
with tables? Do so with our blessings. Most here wouldn't dream of
it.

Just please, for the love of Pete, don't start this old debate up again.
Odds are that it'll end up with someone calling someone else stupid,
someone will call somebody a troll, and after a bunch of pedantic
horseshit arguments over semantics spread over several days, no-one's
opinion will have been swayed one bit. Best to drop it.

 

[Jenn]

In message <[email protected]>


But you are basically saying "I don't care that you have had this
discussion a thousand times before and I can search google to see the
points, it's new to ME so I expect you all to have it again for the
1001st time."

My point is, I've never even heard of this issue until I read it here. A
handful of people post here, so that leaves a lot of people who I've never
heard this issue from before.

Here's ten reasons from link #1 on the google results:

Tables are usually more bytes of markup. (Longer to download, and more
bytes of traffic for the host.)

Tables are usually slower to layout for the browser. (Takes longer for

I don't see this as being true. Do you have any examples I can view to
compare side by side?

Tables usually prevent incremental rendering. (Takes longer for the
user to see anything on the page.) [A table will not display anything at
all until it is completely loaded]

Tables may require you to chop single, logical images into multiple
ones. (This makes redesigns total hell, and also increases page load
time [more http requests and more total bytes].)

Or you can make it into an image map....
Redesigns are usually different from the original anyway, so I don't see how
this is an issue using tables.

Tables break text copying on some browsers. (That's annoying to the
user.)

Tables prevent certain layouts from working within them (like
height:100% for child elements of <td>). (They limit what you can
actually do in terms of layout.)

Once you know CSS, table-based layouts usually take more time to
implement. (A little effort up-front learning CSS pays off heavily in
the end.)

I learned HTML first along with tables, so I like using it and have gotten
very good at designing and coding any design, thus far, using tables, and
never had a problem with them loading fast. None of what you have given in
your ten reasons mean anything to me without a visual example to compare
using tables vs CSS for the same page.

At what point in the last 14 yrs did using HTML and tables become obsolete,
because I have gotten paid very well all this time for doing just that?

I'll throw in one more, Tables used for layout expose you as
unprofessional.

I don't agree ... I've been a professional for 14 yrs...... The client
doesn't care how you code a site as long as it works.

 

[Jenn]

Now now, back when CSS was the BigNewThang I was on the wrong side of
one of those flame wars. Someone showed me a page that looked TOTALLY
different with two different style sheets applied and I shut the hell up
and converted.

jussayin

I've been on my own for years designing and building websites and have never
heard of any big switch to using CSS for layout and only using tables for
tabular content. Now-a-days the newest thing to use is AJAX for displaying
dynamic content and I've seen that used for tabular content too. I'm not
knocking CSS for some things, like drop down horizontal nav or slide out
verticle nav, or anything else... I'm just saying tables work very well and
can solve just about any layout issue. CSS can get very confusing.. btdt
....... especially with external style sheets that have hundres of lines of
code within the style sheet.

 

[freemont]

<http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=080/080.css>

mmmm... Perhaps not the best example. ;-)

<http://i40.tinypic.com/106iujo.png> << Opera on Mandriva

 

[Jenn]

In message <[email protected]>


Then you really haven't been paying attention. You do know we're on
HTML4 now and HTML5 is starting to appear?

HTML code is for the presentation of the actual data. CSS is for the
display. This has been the case for pretty close to 10 years now.

You learned how to do what you wanted to do and that's what you
continued to do. Tables for layout made sense in 1996, but overloading
HTML with display tags was making it a mess. You probably still use <b>
and <i> tags as well, right?

It worked then, why ever change it.

Exactly! LOL

Ah, no. AJAX is not the newest thing at all. The newest thing is HTML5
which makes things like AJAX and Flash largely irrelevant.

I haven't looked at HTML5 because I spend all my time working! LOL

Have you ever been to CSS Zen Garden? <http://www.csszengarden.com/>

nope ... I just looked at it now, tho.

Load it up, the select one of the "select a design" options. Note that
this is the same page, with a different style sheet applied.

compare <http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=211/211.css> and
<http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=202/202.css> and
<http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=080/080.css>

The last time I did a big redesign of my help pages the ONLY file I
edited was the css file and yet the pages look completely different. The
CONTENT didn't change, only the display of that content.

That's not just CSS tho ... it also has references to rss and xml

 

[freemont]

That's not just CSS tho ... it also has references to rss and xml

Holy mackerel.

Do you think that RSS or XML have anything to do with the appearance of a
web page?

 

[Neredbojias]

I use tables for everything that requires formatting a website.
That's the way it was done from the time I ever coded my first
website. It's so simple to use them and you can do just about
anything with them.

Well, there are many things that can be done simpler with css once you
get familiar with it. Tables are awkward sometimes. Despite the
babble here, css really has 2 major parts: styling, like color, fonts,
and say opacity, and layout such as position (static/absolute/fixed),
floats, and "layering": ie. z-index or ordering. I personally don't
condemn the table-user but certain methods *are* easier with css (-when
you learn it.) However, to be perfectly honest, it does sound like you
might be from Oklahoma.

 

[Jenn]

Well, there are many things that can be done simpler with css once you
get familiar with it. Tables are awkward sometimes. Despite the
babble here, css really has 2 major parts: styling, like color, fonts,
and say opacity, and layout such as position (static/absolute/fixed),
floats, and "layering": ie. z-index or ordering. I personally don't
condemn the table-user but certain methods *are* easier with css (-when
you learn it.) However, to be perfectly honest, it does sound like you
might be from Oklahoma.

Oh.. don't get me wrong.. I do use CSS for styling, and I've used it for
layering/z-index type stuff too, and even navigation, but I still love using
the table because it is simple and you don't have to remember a hundred
classes and you can actually see what you're doing. I'm sure CSS has it's
believers, but I consider myself to be somewhere in the middle and will use
whichever method that makes the most sense to me for the task I need to get
done.