Simple HTML table structure issue/question.

[nAnd0]

The issues is with IE and Firefox.
If you browse to http://www.thedream.ca with IE the table is smooth and
intact.
Yet browsing to the same page with FireFox youll notice that on the right
side the table image is a few pixels off.
This is very basic HTML table structuring, check out the source.
To get a better idea of whats going on check out
http://www.thedream.ca/index2.shtml and you can see the same page with
borders on.

Any recommendations?
Chances are I have to restructure the entire thing to meet both browser
needs.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

The issues is with IE and Firefox.
If you browse to http://www.thedream.ca with IE the table is smooth and
intact.
Yet browsing to the same page with FireFox youll notice that on the right
side the table image is a few pixels off.
This is very basic HTML table structuring, check out the source.
To get a better idea of whats going on check out
http://www.thedream.ca/index2.shtml and you can see the same page with
borders on.

Any recommendations?
Chances are I have to restructure the entire thing to meet both browser
needs.

Thanks in advance.

On quick glance can see HTML errors, nesting errors. Did you try
validating your code first?

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.thedream.ca/

 

[nAnd0]

On quick glance can see HTML errors, nesting errors. Did you try
validating your code first?

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.thedream.ca/

I have corrected all the minor issues that validator found. It continues to
complain about HEIGT option in my table structure, not sure why.

Anyways my issue still exists, and that solved nothing.

 

[David Dorward]

nAnd0 wrote:

If you browse to http://www.thedream.ca

This is very basic HTML table structuring, check out the source.

No, its somewhat complicated abuse of tables for layout. If it was
structured then the data being marked up would be tabular - which it isn't.

Any recommendations?

Dump the table. Simplify your markup. Switch to HTML 4.01 Strict. Use CSS
for presentation. Don't use non-breaking spaces as "oi! browser! there's
content here, honest!" hacks. Stick "#" characters at the front of your
hexadecimal RGB colour codes. Avoid <font>. Use alt text that is an
alternative to the image, not utter rubbish.

The results (in, for example, GoogleBot) aren't pretty.

thedream.ca
missing
missing thedream.ca
under construction
The image gallery is located at..
http://gallery.thedream.ca missing
missing

 

[nAnd0]

Thanks for all your help people ..
I just simply restructred the table and got the results I was looking for.
Now IE and Firefox display the same.

http://www.thedream.ca

Thanks again.

 

[nAnd0]

nAnd0 wrote:




No, its somewhat complicated abuse of tables for layout. If it was
structured then the data being marked up would be tabular - which it
isn't.


Dump the table. Simplify your markup. Switch to HTML 4.01 Strict. Use CSS
for presentation. Don't use non-breaking spaces as "oi! browser! there's
content here, honest!" hacks. Stick "#" characters at the front of your
hexadecimal RGB colour codes. Avoid <font>. Use alt text that is an
alternative to the image, not utter rubbish.

Thanks for the advice.. Im sure your recommendations are what I SHOULD do,
but unfortunetly I know little of html .. not to mention CSS and any sort of
present html coding standards.

I need to learn alot. Last time I coded was back when html was first around
which would explain my old school coding.

Can you recommend a good tutorial site?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

nAnd0 wrote:

I have corrected all the minor issues that validator found. It continues to
complain about HEIGT option in my table structure, not sure why.

Anyways my issue still exists, and that solved nothing.

As others will probably tell you, your are making a mistake with a fixed
width and height layout, but if you must one way to do it with HTML 4.01
strict and CSS is:

1) Make two 2 color GIF images 742px x 17px with a transparent color and
#A8A8A8 gray for your
a) top.gif with rounded corners upper-left & upper-right
a) bottom.gif with rounded corners lowser-left & lower-right

2) Page template:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Title</title>
<style type="text/css">
HTML,
BODY {
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
background-color: #C2C2C2;
}
.decor {
line-height: 0;
}
#wrapper {
margin: 20px auto auto auto;
padding: 0;
width: 742px;
}
#content {
margin: 0;
padding: 0 17px 0 17px;
height: 466px;
color: #000000;
background-color: #A8A8A8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div id="wrapper">
<div class="decor"><img src="top.gif" alt=""></div>
<div id="content">Put your content here</div>
<div class="decor"><img src="bottom.gif" alt=""></div>
</div>

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

[...]

Looks like good advice to me (as usual from this respected poster, of
course)

Thanks for the advice.. Im sure your recommendations are what I SHOULD
do, but unfortunetly I know little of html .. not to mention CSS and any
sort of present html coding standards.

Perhaps the group would be better able to help if we knew how you got in
this mess in the first place.

(Hunch if you extruded this HTML from some wannabe-WYSIWYG authoring
tool, then the kind of variation between browsers that you're complaining
of is frankly no big surprise, but I couldn't really recommend manually
wading through the mess of dubious HTML that it has produced. It's going
to waste a lot of your time and effort for some one-off result that might
or might not work on the next page you have to deal with.

My advice, for what it's worth, is that you'd do better to spend that time
on looking into the kind of thing that David was recommending. There's a
learning curve, sure, no mistake there, and not helped by the shortcomings
of some current browsers, but it's the way things are going, and rates to
get you ahead of the field.

good luck

 

[Toby Inkster]

Last time I coded was back when html was first around which would
explain my old school coding.

"Back when HTML was first around" such coding would have been atrocious
too. There was a short period between 1996 and 2000 when it was
commonplace. (Still atrocious though.)

 

[nAnd0]

"Back when HTML was first around" such coding would have been atrocious
too. There was a short period between 1996 and 2000 when it was
commonplace. (Still atrocious though.)

You know what... The code is way to simplistic and short to be called
atrocious.. so do me a favour and stick your negative comments up your ass,
your not helping anyone.

 

[nAnd0]

[...]

Looks like good advice to me (as usual from this respected poster, of
course)

Thanks for the advice.. Im sure your recommendations are what I SHOULD
do, but unfortunetly I know little of html .. not to mention CSS and any
sort of present html coding standards.

Perhaps the group would be better able to help if we knew how you got in
this mess in the first place.

There is no mess! Simple issue which has already been solved with a little
table reconstruction.

(Hunch if you extruded this HTML from some wannabe-WYSIWYG authoring
tool, then the kind of variation between browsers that you're complaining

The majority of the code was hand written .. initial table dumped by
dreamweaver(homesite/coder mode). So no authoring tool is to blame, i could
have used notepad.

of is frankly no big surprise, but I couldn't really recommend manually
wading through the mess of dubious HTML that it has produced. It's going

mess of dubious HTML???? .. its freaking 32 lines of code.

to waste a lot of your time and effort for some one-off result that might
or might not work on the next page you have to deal with.

My advice, for what it's worth, is that you'd do better to spend that time
on looking into the kind of thing that David was recommending. There's a
learning curve, sure, no mistake there, and not helped by the shortcomings
of some current browsers, but it's the way things are going, and rates to
get you ahead of the field.

Yes, I plan on learning CSS structuring.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

nAnd0 wrote:

You know what... The code is way to simplistic and short to be called
atrocious.. so do me a favour and stick your negative comments up your ass,
your not helping anyone.

Great! You ask folks who actually know what they are doing to help you,
and when they inform your where your are wrong, you flip them off
because you do now want to accept that you are wrong...

Oh and by the way, your HTML is *still* invalid. I guess your on your own!

 

[nAnd0]

nAnd0 wrote:


Great! You ask folks who actually know what they are doing to help you,
and when they inform your where your are wrong, you flip them off because
you do now want to accept that you are wrong...

I never said I was wrong or right. It just pisses me off when you ask for
help and someone has to come along and give negative comments. I asked for
help.. I was already aware that my code was flawed.

Oh and by the way, your HTML is *still* invalid. I guess your on your own!

Oh and by the way http://validator.w3.org/ believes that google.com is not
valid either. That says alot doesnt it.

Little Works Studio is a very ugly site!
Im sure many will agree .. how does that make you feel?
I can assure you that when my site is complete (valid or not) it will be a
hell of alot more tastefull then yours, not to mention functioning properly
on all popular browsers.

 

[David Dorward]

You know what... The code is way to simplistic and short to be called
atrocious.

The markup should look something like this:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>thedream.ca</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="style.css">
</head>
<body>
<div id="splash"><div class="roundedCornerHack">
<h1>thedream.ca</h1>
<p class="note">under construction

<p>The image gallery is located at&hellip;<br>
<em><a
href="http://gallery.thedream.cs">http://gallery.thedream.cs</a></em>
</div></div>
</body>
</html>

Compared to that, your code is not in the least "simplistic" or "short". Its
bloated (not to mention the problems of syntax errors and nonsensical
semantic claims).

. so do me a favour and stick your negative comments up your
ass, your not helping anyone.

You're asking a group of people to invest their time and energy into helping
you for free. You are getting good (and free) advice from several different
people (Alan and Toby are respected experts on many of the topics this
newsgroup covers). The only person claiming that the advice isn't good is
you.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

nAnd0 wrote:

mess of dubious HTML???? .. its freaking 32 lines of code.

<snip>

That may be so, but amazingly enough, you still managed to muck it up.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

I never said I was wrong or right. It just pisses me off when you ask for
help and someone has to come along and give negative comments. I asked for
help.. I was already aware that my code was flawed.


Oh and by the way http://validator.w3.org/ believes that google.com is not
valid either. That says alot doesnt it.

Yes, it says google.com isn't valid. What's your point?

And do you really have that email account at way.com that you're
flying, or are you just abusing their servers by giving that address to
the spam address harvestors? I think the latter.

Track Entertainment
485 Madison Ave, 21st Fl
New York, NY 10022
US

Domain Name: WAY.COM


More clues here: http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/mungfaq.html

 

[David Dorward]

I never said I was wrong or right.

Nor did Jonathan. He (I assume) made some, probably accurate, assumptions
about why you reacted the way you did.

It just pisses me off when you ask for
help and someone has to come along and give negative comments.

Get real! This is a discussion group, not a helpdesk. You post
something, we discuss its implications. If the discussion happens to
answer a question you've asked, that's incidental.
-- nobull, c.l.p.misc

Oh and by the way http://validator.w3.org/ believes that google.com is not
valid either. That says alot doesnt it.

Yes, Google suck at writing markup. Google suck at a great many things. What
they don't suck at is search. (And they are so good at search, and loaded
down with enough resources to do lots and lots of testing, that they can
get away with any problems missing out a basic level of quality assurance
might cause them).

Little Works Studio is a very ugly site!
Im sure many will agree .. how does that make you feel?

Hopefully not too bad. Aesthetics are (largely) a matter of taste. I
wouldn't think the opinion of one, rather objectionable individual who
hides behind a forged email address and pseudonym on Usenet would count for
much.

 

[nAnd0]

Yes, it says google.com isn't valid. What's your point?

And do you really have that email account at way.com that you're
flying, or are you just abusing their servers by giving that address to
the spam address harvestors? I think the latter.

(e-mail address removed) .. noway just avoiding spam.

 

[nAnd0]

The markup should look something like this:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>thedream.ca</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="style.css">
</head>
<body>
<div id="splash"><div class="roundedCornerHack">
<h1>thedream.ca</h1>
<p class="note">under construction

<p>The image gallery is located at&hellip;<br>
<em><a

href="http://gallery.thedream.cs">http://gallery.thedream.cs</a></em>
</div></div>
</body>
</html>

Compared to that, your code is not in the least "simplistic" or "short".
Its
bloated (not to mention the problems of syntax errors and nonsensical
semantic claims).


You're asking a group of people to invest their time and energy into
helping
you for free. You are getting good (and free) advice from several
different
people (Alan and Toby are respected experts on many of the topics this
newsgroup covers). The only person claiming that the advice isn't good is
you.

I was replying to a single individual.. insulting the code is not advice.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

nAnd0 wrote:

I never said I was wrong or right. It just pisses me off when you ask for
help and someone has to come along and give negative comments. I asked for
help.. I was already aware that my code was flawed.

Ah, doesn't it seem logical that maybe a *flaw* might be the cause of
some of your trouble?

Little Works Studio is a very ugly site!
Im sure many will agree .. how does that make you feel?
I can assure you that when my site is complete (valid or not) it will be a
hell of alot more tastefull then yours, not to mention functioning properly
on all popular browsers.

Ah and yes, way to go!


Anyway is was not aesthetics what we where discussing but mechanics.
Your approach and execution is flawed. We offered your alternative that
would have improved your situation.