"tbody" tag

[Terry]

Hi,

I created some tables using Dreamweaver. In the html code, there were
no <tbody> tags after <table>. However, when I switched to NVU to edit
some codes, I noticed that NVU added the extra <tbody> tags for all
tables.

Is this <tbody> tag necessary? Is there a way to tell NVU not to add
the extra tag?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Terry

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

For any help on your software, try pressing [F1] for a change.

Is this <tbody> tag necessary?

Assuming you use html4 of some sort, you can do one of two things:
1. Lookup the DTD and you'll see <!ELEMENT TBODY O O (TR)+ -- table
body -->
2. Go to <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#edef-TBODY> and you'll
see the same, but then with some explanation.

Try and help yourself some more in the future, will you. That's what references
et cetera are for.



--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[David Dorward]

Is this <tbody> tag necessary?

In HTML the element is already there, the tag is just optional.
In XHTML you should have the element, but since XHTML doesn't have optional
tags they fudged the DTD to allow table rows to be children of tables.

Is there a way to tell NVU not to add the extra tag?

Why? It does not harm.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Is this <tbody> tag necessary?

No. If you care about its presence or absence, then use a code editor,
not a WYSISLWSEMPS drag-and-drool interface.

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

Hi,

I created some tables using Dreamweaver. In the html code, there were
no <tbody> tags after <table>. However, when I switched to NVU to edit
some codes, I noticed that NVU added the extra <tbody> tags for all
tables.

As it should.

Is this <tbody> tag necessary? Is there a way to tell NVU not to add
the extra tag?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Terry

There are always flaws with such heavy applications. The best thing to do is
to become fluent at HTML. This way, you always know what goes on
underneath.

I used Frontpage when I was younger and even Word in the very early days.
This was far slower and less reliable than editing at code-level, which
helps you understand why a page validates or not, why it does not work in
certain browsers and how constraints like screen resolution, colour and
local font settings will affect your page.

When printing a poster, what you see if what you get. The Web is no poster.
You can never predict what the visitor will get (you mustn't), but you can
make a page robust.

Roy

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Terry quothed:

Is this <tbody> tag necessary?

If it's a female tbody, it definitely needs a t-shirt.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

With neither quill nor qualm, Terry quothed:

If it's a female tbody, it definitely needs a t-shirt.

Wet. JPG.

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

Wet. JPG.

And white preferably.

Roy

 

[Toby Inkster]

WYSISLWSEMPS

What You See Is Sort of Like What Someone Else Might Possibly See?

 

[Andy Dingley]

What You See Is Sort of Like What Someone Else Might Possibly See?

Bingo !

 

[SpaceGirl]

No. If you care about its presence or absence, then use a code editor,
not a WYSISLWSEMPS drag-and-drool interface.

DreamWeaver is a code editor, that happens to have some visualisation
options. They HELP build a site. Of course, being a web designer of any
worth you knew that rather than just following the blind trend of
dissing software because it's the trendy thing to do. Right?

We were working on a site today with some pretty complicated layouts.
While DW didn't like they layers (divs) we were using (it simply stacked
them up), it was very useful to have a psuedo-WYSIWYMG display for
formatting text (not direct formatting - applying CSS styles from DW's
UI). As the content was a mirror of some printed docs, it was vastly
faster than doing in by hand in HTML.

I wonder when people post comments like you how you manage to design
sites at all. After all, a lot of what makes a good site is
understanding how UI's work, how to make processes faster and easier to
use - and yet these comments seem to suggest a complete lack of skills
when it comes to actually using and understanding UIs, or why they are
even there.

So


there

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.

 

[Andy Dingley]

DreamWeaver is a code editor, that happens to have some visualisation
options.

From the OP's original post, they're designing in the visual view.

They HELP build a site.

That's debatable. They simplify the process of making a bad fixed-size
site, but I've yet to see DW features (or any WYSIWYG HTML editor) that
encourage _good_ coding of the site.

Of course, being a web designer of any
worth you knew that rather than just following the blind trend of
dissing software because it's the trendy thing to do. Right?

Who rattled your cage ?

I don't know dreamweaver. Bumped into it a few times (just last week for
one, because it was the only editor on the machine I was using). I've
yet to see anything that attracts me to it. The interface of the code
editor is clunky and it doesn't do XML auto closing-tag insertion, which
is one of the few really useful features of an editor that isn't just a
typing accelerator.

We were working on a site today with some pretty complicated layouts.
While DW didn't like they layers (divs) we were using (it simply stacked
them up),

So it "doesn't like" something as fundamental as a <div> and we're
expected to recommend it ?

applying CSS styles from DW's UI).

DW (and all other WYSIWYGs I've seen) are particularly poor on this.
They have no "styles", as distinct entities. They have HTML elements
(in a trivial DOM) and they have CSS properties. Sometimes they assemble
collections of properties and attach them to elements. But none of this
is a "style", in the sense of a coherent property-set with a meaning to
it, rather than just a coincidental coupling of them.

After all, a lot of what makes a good site is
understanding how UI's work, how to make processes faster and easier to
use

No it isn't - not at all. Making a good site is about the end result
you achieve, not the slickness of the editor you used to do it.

I'm sure that DW is an excellent way to quickly build tables with
pixel-sized cells. And if that's what you think makes a "good site",
then good luck to you.

 

[Toby Inkster]

DreamWeaver is a code editor, that happens to have some visualisation
options.

No it isn't. It's a WYSIWYDG editor that happens to have a code editor
tacked on.

For those of you unsure about whether I'm right or SpaceGirl is, ask
yourself "if Macromedia were, in the next version, going to remove the
visual editor or the code editor from the product, which would go?"

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Toby Inkster quothed:

No it isn't. It's a WYSIWYDG editor that happens to have a code editor
tacked on.

For those of you unsure about whether I'm right or SpaceGirl is, ask
yourself "if Macromedia were, in the next version, going to remove the
visual editor or the code editor from the product, which would go?"

Okay, I asked myself that question and I didn't get an answer. It was
really frustrating.

 

[SpaceGirl]

From the OP's original post, they're designing in the visual view.




That's debatable. They simplify the process of making a bad fixed-size
site, but I've yet to see DW features (or any WYSIWYG HTML editor) that
encourage _good_ coding of the site.





Who rattled your cage ?

It was feeding time.

I don't know dreamweaver.

Yeah, like I couldn't guess that

Bumped into it a few times (just last week for
one, because it was the only editor on the machine I was using). I've
yet to see anything that attracts me to it. The interface of the code
editor is clunky and it doesn't do XML auto closing-tag insertion, which
is one of the few really useful features of an editor that isn't just a
typing accelerator.

For pure coding Eclipse is probably better, but there is no hyrid
application better than DW right now. "Designers" need to remember that
web design is as much about what the resulting page looks like as is how
neat the code is. Very difficult and time consuming if there is an extra
layer (ie; publish and view) before you see the results. Hardly a
streamlined process, and not good when you are constantly adjusting
output or experimenting. All of this can be done real time without
publising in an IDE like DW. Perhasp the next version of DW closes XML
tags (or maybe there's a plugin?), but to be honest, personally I dont
do enough pure XML to warrent the change (I'm a design, not a programmer).

So it "doesn't like" something as fundamental as a <div> and we're
expected to recommend it ?

Under most circumstances it's fine; and even psuedo WYSIWYG is better
than *none*, especially if it saves you having to publish before you can
view your content. I wouldn't expect ANY IDE to manage it perfectly,
given that most pages these days contain a lot of server side code. But
a smart guess can save a lot of time, and if you are designing sites
where the "user interface" is seperated from functional code (as you
should with CSS), programs like DW shine.

The biggest downside of all of this is that it is very easy for a newbie
to sling together some pretty ropey HTML. But then every tool can be
abused - that's not the fault of the tool.

DW (and all other WYSIWYGs I've seen) are particularly poor on this.

DW's style interface is not very good; actually I tend to code all my CS
by hand within a code window inside DW. It has excellant code hinting
(yes, even on CSS), so when I'm really burned out it reminds me of
things I should know!

Once you have defined these styles they can be applied at a click of a
button, or by hand in the code window. Either way once they are there
management is far easier than by hand, and application of the becomes
extremely easy.

They have no "styles", as distinct entities. They have HTML elements
(in a trivial DOM) and they have CSS properties. Sometimes they assemble
collections of properties and attach them to elements. But none of this
is a "style", in the sense of a coherent property-set with a meaning to
it, rather than just a coincidental coupling of them.

Yes - but a designer worth anything knows this and knows how to do it
"the right way". DW is just a way of accelerating a process - it's by no
means the solution to everything. By using a combination of the UI tools
and hand coding it massively reduces keyboard time and makes it a lot
easier to visualise what you are trying to do.

No it isn't - not at all. Making a good site is about the end result
you achieve, not the slickness of the editor you used to do it.

Yes - but your website itself is a UI. That was my point. Nobody cares
how you made the web site. Just that it works. And if you are charging a
customer for your time, then how fast your produce these results becomes
critically important.

I'm sure that DW is an excellent way to quickly build tables with
pixel-sized cells. And if that's what you think makes a "good site",
then good luck to you.

I never said that. What makes a good web site is a good designer. Not
any one tool.

M.

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.

 

[SpaceGirl]

SpaceGirl wrote:




No it isn't. It's a WYSIWYDG editor that happens to have a code editor
tacked on.

Strictly speaking you're right. But how you, as a user, use the tool
makes all the difference.

For those of you unsure about whether I'm right or SpaceGirl is, ask
yourself "if Macromedia were, in the next version, going to remove the
visual editor or the code editor from the product, which would go?"

Seeing as both parts equally add to the design process, isn't that
question daft?



--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.

 

[Andy Dingley]

"if Macromedia were, in the next version, going to remove the
visual editor or the code editor from the product, which would go?"

Obviously the code editor would go.

- Dreamweaver is sold to those who think that visual design interfaces
are the way to work.

- Dreamweaver is a poor code edtor in comparison to the other, far
chaper, products.

As the ultimate purpose of Dreamweaver is to sell Dreamweaver, not to
build sites, then the makers would obviously have to play to their
perceived strengths, not their actual performance.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Strictly speaking you're right. But how you, as a user, use the tool
makes all the difference.

Seeing as both parts equally add to the design process, isn't that
question daft?

Why is it daft? The point is emphasis: they'd keep the main selling
point; they'll ditch the code editor.

 

[Toby Inkster]

Seeing as both parts equally add to the design process, isn't that
question daft?

It's a hypothetical question. The answers to such a question, although
they are rarely directly useful, often reveal a lot about the world.

 

[SpaceGirl]

Why is it daft? The point is emphasis: they'd keep the main selling
point; they'll ditch the code editor.

Because that probably is the most powerful bit of DW, especially if you
know not to expect WYSIWYG. As a visual guide it is invaluable, and not
really achievable in any other product I've found (to the same degree).
But that's all it is... a guide. A bit like seeing pre-rendered visual
effects inside Premier Pro - you get a good idea what the elements will
look like so that you can toy with them and move them around and format
them, but you dont get the real deal until you publish the thing. It
still saves masses of time. Macromedia should push it as a visual editor
- it's light years ahead of any other programs that pretend to do
WYSIWYG. At the same time, it's a massively powerful code editor that
supports all the major languages and standard, so there is something for
everyone in there - be you a n00b or a pro.

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.