Simple HTML table structure issue/question.

Discussion in 'HTML' started by nAnd0, Sep 3, 2005.

  1. nAnd0

    nAnd0 Guest

    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.
     
    nAnd0, Sep 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. nAnd0 wrote:
    > 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/

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Sep 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. nAnd0

    nAnd0 Guest

    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
    news:gZkSe.341$...
    > nAnd0 wrote:
    >> 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/
    >
    > --
    > Take care,
    >
    > Jonathan


    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.


    > -------------------
    > LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    > http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    nAnd0, Sep 3, 2005
    #3
  4. 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


    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    David Dorward, Sep 3, 2005
    #4
  5. nAnd0

    nAnd0 Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:eOkSe.37103$...
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    nAnd0, Sep 3, 2005
    #5
  6. nAnd0

    nAnd0 Guest

    "David Dorward" <> wrote in message
    news:dfcodd$6h$1$...
    > 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.


    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?

    >
    > 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
    >
    >
    > --
    > David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    > Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    nAnd0, Sep 3, 2005
    #6
  7. nAnd0 wrote:

    <snip>
    > 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>


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Sep 3, 2005
    #7
  8. On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, nAnd0 wrote:

    > "David Dorward" <> wrote in message
    > news:dfcodd$6h$1$...
    > >
    > > Dump the table. Simplify your markup.

    [...]

    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
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Sep 3, 2005
    #8
  9. nAnd0

    Toby Inkster Guest

    nAnd0 wrote:

    > 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.)

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Sep 3, 2005
    #9
  10. nAnd0

    nAnd0 Guest

    "Toby Inkster" <> wrote in message
    news:5n.co.uk...
    > nAnd0 wrote:
    >
    >> 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.)


    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.


    >
    > --
    > Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    > Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    >
     
    nAnd0, Sep 3, 2005
    #10
  11. nAnd0

    nAnd0 Guest

    "Alan J. Flavell" <> wrote in message
    news:pine.WNT.4.63.0509032128140.1596@ZORIN...
    >
    > On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, nAnd0 wrote:
    >
    >> "David Dorward" <> wrote in message
    >> news:dfcodd$6h$1$...
    >> >
    >> > Dump the table. Simplify your markup.

    > [...]
    >
    > 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.

    >
    > good luck
     
    nAnd0, Sep 3, 2005
    #11
  12. nAnd0 wrote:
    <snip>
    > 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!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Sep 3, 2005
    #12
  13. nAnd0

    nAnd0 Guest

    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
    news:KxpSe.356$...
    > nAnd0 wrote:
    > <snip>
    >> 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...


    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.

    >
    > --
    > Take care,
    >
    > Jonathan
    > -------------------
    > LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    > http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com


    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.
     
    nAnd0, Sep 3, 2005
    #13
  14. nAnd0 wrote:

    >> "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.


    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.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    David Dorward, Sep 3, 2005
    #14
  15. nAnd0 wrote:
    <snip>
    > 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.


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Sep 4, 2005
    #15
  16. nAnd0 wrote:
    >
    > "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
    > news:KxpSe.356$...
    >> nAnd0 wrote:
    >> <snip>
    >>> 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...

    >
    > 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.


    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


    --
    Blinky Linux Registered User 297263

    Killing All Posts from GG: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    End Of The Good GG Archive GUI: http://blinkynet.net/comp/gggui.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Sep 4, 2005
    #16
  17. nAnd0 wrote:

    >> you flip them off because you do now want to accept that you are wrong...


    > 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, 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.


    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.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    David Dorward, Sep 4, 2005
    #17
  18. nAnd0

    nAnd0 Guest

    "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > nAnd0 wrote:
    >>
    >> "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote in message
    >> news:KxpSe.356$...
    >>> nAnd0 wrote:
    >>> <snip>
    >>>> 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...

    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    > 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.


    .. noway just avoiding spam.

    >
    > 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
    >
    >
    > --
    > Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
    >
    > Killing All Posts from GG: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    > End Of The Good GG Archive GUI: http://blinkynet.net/comp/gggui.html
     
    nAnd0, Sep 4, 2005
    #18
  19. nAnd0

    nAnd0 Guest

    "David Dorward" <> wrote in message
    news:dfd9bv$8r0$1$...
    > nAnd0 wrote:
    >
    >>> "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.

    >
    > 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.


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

    >
    > --
    > David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    > Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
     
    nAnd0, Sep 4, 2005
    #19
  20. nAnd0 wrote:

    <snip>
    > 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?

    <snip>

    > 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! :p


    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.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Sep 4, 2005
    #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. David Williams
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,140
    Jacob Yang [MSFT]
    Aug 12, 2003
  2. Rio
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,205
  3. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    395
    Neredbojias
    Apr 13, 2006
  4. Excluded_Middle

    Pointers to structure and array of structure.

    Excluded_Middle, Oct 24, 2004, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    765
    Martin Ambuhl
    Oct 26, 2004
  5. A
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    1,609
    Jorgen Grahn
    Apr 17, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page