"tbody" tag

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Terry, Jul 26, 2005.

  1. Terry

    Terry Guest

    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
    Terry, Jul 26, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:26:01 -0500, Terry <0m> wrote:

    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 |
    `-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
    Barbara de Zoete, Jul 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Terry wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
    Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
    David Dorward, Jul 26, 2005
    #3
  4. Terry

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:26:01 -0500, Terry <0m>
    wrote:

    >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.
    Andy Dingley, Jul 27, 2005
    #4
  5. Terry wrote:

    > 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

    --
    Roy S. Schestowitz
    http://Schestowitz.com
    Roy Schestowitz, Jul 27, 2005
    #5
  6. Terry

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Terry quothed:

    > Is this <tbody> tag necessary?


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

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Jul 27, 2005
    #6
  7. Neredbojias wrote:

    > With neither quill nor qualm, Terry quothed:


    >> Is this <tbody> tag necessary?


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


    Wet. JPG.

    --
    Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
    Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
    Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    *ALSO contains links for access to the NON-BETA GG archive interface*
    Blinky the Shark, Jul 27, 2005
    #7
  8. Blinky the Shark wrote:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    >
    >> With neither quill nor qualm, Terry quothed:

    >
    >>> Is this <tbody> tag necessary?

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

    >
    > Wet. JPG.


    And white preferably.

    Roy

    --
    Roy S. Schestowitz
    http://Schestowitz.com
    Roy Schestowitz, Jul 28, 2005
    #8
  9. Terry

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Andy Dingley wrote:

    > WYSISLWSEMPS


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

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Jul 28, 2005
    #9
  10. Terry

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:05:46 +0100, Toby Inkster
    <> wrote:

    >> WYSISLWSEMPS

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


    Bingo !
    Andy Dingley, Jul 28, 2005
    #10
  11. Terry

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Andy Dingley wrote:
    > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:26:01 -0500, Terry <0m>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>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.


    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 :p

    --


    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, Jul 28, 2005
    #11
  12. Terry

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:14:52 +0100, SpaceGirl
    <> wrote:

    >> 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.


    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.

    --
    'Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu Evesham wagn'nagl fhtagn'
    Andy Dingley, Jul 29, 2005
    #12
  13. Terry

    Toby Inkster Guest

    SpaceGirl wrote:

    > 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?"

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Jul 29, 2005
    #13
  14. Terry

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Toby Inkster quothed:

    > SpaceGirl wrote:
    >
    > > 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?"


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

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Jul 29, 2005
    #14
  15. Terry

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Andy Dingley wrote:
    > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:14:52 +0100, SpaceGirl
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>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.

    >
    >
    > 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 ?


    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).

    >>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 ?


    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.

    >>applying CSS styles from DW's UI).

    >
    > 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.

    >>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.


    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, Jul 29, 2005
    #15
  16. Terry

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote:
    > SpaceGirl wrote:
    >
    >
    >>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.


    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.
    SpaceGirl, Jul 29, 2005
    #16
  17. Terry

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:09:56 +0100, Toby Inkster
    <> wrote:

    >"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.
    Andy Dingley, Jul 30, 2005
    #17
  18. SpaceGirl wrote:
    > Toby Inkster wrote:
    >> SpaceGirl wrote:



    >>>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.


    > 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?


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

    --
    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, Jul 30, 2005
    #18
  19. Terry

    Toby Inkster Guest

    SpaceGirl wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Jul 30, 2005
    #19
  20. Terry

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Blinky the Shark wrote:
    > SpaceGirl wrote:
    >
    >>Toby Inkster wrote:
    >>
    >>>SpaceGirl wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >>>>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.

    >
    >
    >>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?

    >
    >
    > 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.
    SpaceGirl, Jul 30, 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. shruds
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    737
    John C. Bollinger
    Jan 27, 2006
  2. JohnWMpls

    <TBODY>

    JohnWMpls, Jul 28, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    2,458
    Barbara de Zoete
    Aug 3, 2005
  3. JohnW

    <tbody> etc

    JohnW, Aug 22, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    542
    Blinky the Shark
    Aug 26, 2005
  4. Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,979
  5. Alhambra Eidos Kiquenet

    tag <tbody> using TAble control

    Alhambra Eidos Kiquenet, Nov 28, 2007, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    500
    Alexey Smirnov
    Nov 28, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page