Table cells


B

Brian Robertson

I am doing something wrong on a style sheet. I want some space before
the text in the cells of a table, so I used this:

td {
height:19px;
background-color: rgb(248,239,182);
margin-left: 3;
}

When viewed in my editor the spaces are there as desired, but once
viewed with a browser they are gone.

Help!

Brian.
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

Jonathan N. Little

Brian said:
I am doing something wrong on a style sheet. I want some space before
the text in the cells of a table, so I used this:

td {
height:19px;
background-color: rgb(248,239,182);
margin-left: 3;
}

When viewed in my editor the spaces are there as desired, but once
viewed with a browser they are gone.

Margin is outside the element padding is inside the element, therefore
if your want to add space to the text *inside* the TD then the property
for the TD should be padding. Also your must use *units* for almost all
length properties "margin-left: 3;" is invalid, best to use units
proportional with respect to the font

td { height: 1.5em; padding-left: .25em; }
 
B

Bergamot

Brian said:
td {
margin-left: 3;
}

3 what? Hobnobs? Non-zero length values require a unit: em, px, %, etc.

BTW, margins on a table cell may give odd results in some browsers. Use
padding instead.
 
B

Brian Robertson

Bergamot said:
3 what? Hobnobs? Non-zero length values require a unit: em, px, %, etc.

BTW, margins on a table cell may give odd results in some browsers. Use
padding instead.

Comes from using Frontpage!

Brian.
 
B

Brian Robertson

Jonathan said:
Margin is outside the element padding is inside the element, therefore
if your want to add space to the text *inside* the TD then the property
for the TD should be padding. Also your must use *units* for almost all
length properties "margin-left: 3;" is invalid, best to use units
proportional with respect to the font

td { height: 1.5em; padding-left: .25em; }

Thanks!
 
D

dorayme

Bergamot said:
Non-zero length values require a unit: em, px, %, etc.

This is right.

However, there is a small implication here that it is quite ok
not to use them for zero lengths. Technically this is correct.
However, there is an issue of some gravity here.

Jean-Paul Sartre was sitting at a French cafe, revising his draft
of Being and Nothingness. He said to the waitress, "I'd like a
cup of coffee, please, with no cream." The waitress replied, "I'm
sorry, monsieur, but we're out of cream. How about with no milk?"

Now surely, if a cup of coffee without milk is different to a cup
of coffee without cream, then a length without any pixels is
different to a length without any em width. So those with a
particular interest in great clarity in their css might be wise
to use units for zero lengths too. It will do no harm and it will
communicate more precisely with those who read css sheets.
 
Ad

Advertisements

N

Neredbojias

This is right.

However, there is a small implication here that it is quite ok
not to use them for zero lengths. Technically this is correct.
However, there is an issue of some gravity here.

Jean-Paul Sartre was sitting at a French cafe, revising his draft
of Being and Nothingness. He said to the waitress, "I'd like a
cup of coffee, please, with no cream." The waitress replied, "I'm
sorry, monsieur, but we're out of cream. How about with no milk?"

Now surely, if a cup of coffee without milk is different to a cup
of coffee without cream, then a length without any pixels is
different to a length without any em width. So those with a
particular interest in great clarity in their css might be wise
to use units for zero lengths too. It will do no harm and it will
communicate more precisely with those who read css sheets.

Actually, the question should be "Is nothing equal to 0?" and the answer
is "No."

Example:

Cookies left in the jar=0
Cookies left in the jar=

Are the above two lines meaningfully the same?

According to (most) scientists, the universe started from a singularity.
Hypothetically, this singularity was nothing (or 0 if your prefer) but
had the theoretical *potential* to be something. Furthermore, the name
"singularity" in this context definitely does not relate to "1" because,
as I have proven elsewhere, you cannot have just 1 exclusively in a
totality unless you consider a possible all-encompassing totality as "The
Totality", i.e. 1, and the only thing in existence forevermore.

Now the next question is "How can you have 'nothing with potential?'"
Isn't that very potential something in its own right? The answer is that
you cannot have "nothing with potential" because potential implies the
existence of time, which, of course, would be not nothing. Ergo, the
"potential theory" is nothing.

Unfortunately, this brings us back to the nothing vs. zero problem. If
zero has no potential, does it not equate to nothing? The only logical
solution is that 0 does, indeed, imply something in addition to itself
(as opposed to "nothing") but which can be defined exclusively by numbers
or other tangible contrivances irrational in scope.

In conclusion, all this goes to prove that religion is inconsummate,
God's existence is inconceivable, and putting units after 0 quantities in
css is an exercise in futility. However, dues to flaws beyond the
markupists' control, it realistically is sometimes not.

--
Neredbojias

Once I had a little bird
That made me rather hasty.
So now I have no little bird,
But it was very tasty.
 
T

Toby A Inkster

dorayme said:
This is right.

However, there is a small implication here that it is quite ok
not to use them for zero lengths. Technically this is correct.
However, there is an issue of some gravity here.

<snip very interesting allegory about Sartre>

Also "line-height" doesn't require a length. When the length is missed
out, it behaves a bit like "em", but not quite.

For what it's worth, when I'm in early stages of CSS layout, I often set a
bunch of borders on elements to:

border: 0px solid magenta;

(and dotted/dashed lime/cyan/yellow/red/etc).

Then, with a single search-and-replace I can change 0px to 1.0px to see
borders around everything. Then search-and-replace back.

By leaving on the "px" my search-and-replace is able to differentiate
between these debugging borders, and other, more normal, occurrences of 0
in my style sheet.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 6 days, 15:46.]

The End of an Era
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/06/26/end-of-an-era/
 
B

Brian Robertson

Toby said:
<snip very interesting allegory about Sartre>

Also "line-height" doesn't require a length. When the length is missed
out, it behaves a bit like "em", but not quite.

For what it's worth, when I'm in early stages of CSS layout, I often set a
bunch of borders on elements to:

border: 0px solid magenta;

(and dotted/dashed lime/cyan/yellow/red/etc).

Then, with a single search-and-replace I can change 0px to 1.0px to see
borders around everything. Then search-and-replace back.

By leaving on the "px" my search-and-replace is able to differentiate
between these debugging borders, and other, more normal, occurrences of 0
in my style sheet.

Let me explain where my mistake came from. I am reading a book about CSS
and slowly learning new things, but these things take time. Meanwhile, I
wanted to sort the padding problem out. Previously I had highlighted the
text and put the padding in through Frontpage settings. The code was an
inline style and it said margin-left: 3. There was no unit shown. From
this I simply tried to guess the proper rule and then turned to you lot
for help. It worked but was clumsy, which is why I wanted it out.

Brian.
 
D

dorayme

Toby A Inkster said:
For what it's worth, when I'm in early stages of CSS layout, I often set a
bunch of borders on elements to:

border: 0px solid magenta;

Me too, one's own private "FF developer type outline elements"
facility...
 
A

Adrienne Boswell

Actually, the question should be "Is nothing equal to 0?" and the answer
is "No."

Were you watching Sesame Street this morning? The number of the day was
Zero (ha ha ha ha) --- Sorry, as a single Mom with a three and a half year
old ....
 
Ad

Advertisements

N

Neredbojias

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias


Were you watching Sesame Street this morning? The number of the day
was Zero (ha ha ha ha) --- Sorry, as a single Mom with a three and a
half year old ....

Truthfully, the question of the universal singularity has haunted me for
years. The notion, simply put, is that it is/was both something and
nothing outside of time. Now how can anyone in their right mind accept
that? Ergo, I thought referring to it in the shade of dorayme's sentient
penumbra might just shed some light on the reality or lack thereof imbued
within the scope of my nightmare. Juvenile, I admit, but since my second
childhood has expired, I've entertained nostalgic longings for convoluted
neuroses.

--
Neredbojias

Once I had a little dog
Who wagged its tail spritely.
But it walked by the harvestor
And now is shorter slightly.
 
D

dorayme

Neredbojias said:
singularity has haunted me for
years. The notion, simply put, is that it is/was both something and
nothing outside of time. Now how can anyone in their right mind accept
that? Ergo, I thought referring to it in the shade of dorayme's sentient
penumbra might just shed some light on the reality or lack thereof imbued
within the scope of my nightmare.


I take this as license to speak. Perhaps you are having
difficulty with the idea of anything being outside of time? With
some things, it makes no sense for them to be time stamped; for
example, there is a prime number between 5 and 8 but it can
hardly have any kind of lifespan. Now, if something has no
lifespan, it cannot be in time.

The other difficulty you are having perhaps is the idea of being
on the edge of something. What really is an edge? I have a Theory
of Edges but I get this funny feeling that it might be a bit OT
to expound it here.
 
N

Neredbojias

I take this as license to speak. Perhaps you are having
difficulty with the idea of anything being outside of time?

Yes, that is true. How can existence itself *be* with no time? I can
possibly accept timelessness in conjunction with a test-acceptance of The
Singularity or absolutely nothing at all, but otherwise I see it as
impossible.
With
some things, it makes no sense for them to be time stamped; for
example, there is a prime number between 5 and 8 but it can
hardly have any kind of lifespan.

Ironically, it is true for all time. It becomes non-true with no time.

Now, if something has no
lifespan, it cannot be in time.

I think semantics are getting in the way here. Everything you know,
imagine, or feel exists within time. Even 2 + 2 = 4 needs "time" to have
any meaning. Physical laws do not exist outside of time so neither do
their formulae.
The other difficulty you are having perhaps is the idea of being
on the edge of something. What really is an edge? I have a Theory
of Edges but I get this funny feeling that it might be a bit OT
to expound it here.

Well, an edge can be part of something, as the edge of a precipice. It can
be a limit in other ways, -the limit of my patience. I suppose it can be
external to something as well, but what are your thoughts? Don't keep me
on edge...

--
Neredbojias

Once I had a little dog
Who wagged its tail spritely.
But it walked by the harvestor
And now is shorter slightly.
 
D

dorayme

Neredbojias said:
Everything you know, imagine, or feel exists within time.

I was not talking about what you or anyone knows or imagines or
feels. There are plenty of things that are true that no one
knows. It just does not make any obvious sense to say about some
things (I gave an example) that they exist in time.

Anyway, you know what about time? So why would you be insisting
that everything exists in it. (Is someone paying you Boji to say
this?). You might as well say everything exists in bright
daylight but not otherwise.
 
N

Neredbojias

I was not talking about what you or anyone knows or imagines or
feels. There are plenty of things that are true that no one
knows. It just does not make any obvious sense to say about some
things (I gave an example) that they exist in time.

Anyway, you know what about time? So why would you be insisting
that everything exists in it. (Is someone paying you Boji to say
this?). You might as well say everything exists in bright
daylight but not otherwise.

According to (most) scientists, time did not exist until after the start
of the Big Bang. Ergo, the Banger itself had to exist outside of time
prior to that. This prodigious Banger has been proposed to be a
singularity, but what is the grist of that? Anyway, it would seem the
brainiacs agree with you, although whether you can actually have
something prior to the start of time is an interesting dilemma.

I believe that time is just a euphemism for motion and "prior to" the Big
Bang there was no motion. Now physical reality requires motion; atoms
pulse with "life" and could not exist completely static. Neither could
their constituents in all probability. Therefore, there would *be* no
reality prior to the BB, and this is something almost everyone agrees
with. Of course, I'm speaking of reality as we know it; perhaps there
was God at first after all. A simple musing of faith doesn't solve the
problem rationally, however, because nothing tangible (-including prime
numbers) would exist in a homogeneous, non-cognible environment.

Basically what we have is something springing from nothing. In other
words, before there was something, there was nothing. But it couldn't
have been quite nothing because something somehow, somewhen came from it.
Even an empty container is something. So your insistence that some thing
(s) exist(s) outside of time may very well be true, but whatever it
is/was is (so far, at least) unfathomable from a deductive point of view.
Based on this knowledge, my belief is that if you have just 1 of
something in the absolute (-meaning in a universe with nothing else,) you
may as well have nothing because, based on what we know, there is no
difference. To put it another way, 1 = 0.

--
Neredbojias

Once I had a little dog
Who wagged its tail spritely.
But it walked by the harvestor
And now is shorter slightly.
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

dorayme

Neredbojias said:
According to (most) scientists, time did not exist until after the start
of the Big Bang. Ergo, the Banger itself had to exist outside of time
prior to that.

This is mistake of yours does not even have a Latin name. I will
have to adapt a phrase of my papa: it is a confusion of the first
waters.

If time begins at the start of the BB, there is prior about it.
Please stop thinking about these things, they can cause brain
damage in the wrong heads.
 
D

dorayme

dorayme said:
This is mistake of yours does not even have a Latin name. I will
have to adapt a phrase of my papa: it is a confusion of the first
waters.

If time begins at the start of the BB, there is prior about it.
Please stop thinking about these things, they can cause brain
damage in the wrong heads.

My God, I only had one glass of wine with dinner tonight!

This mistake of yours does not even have a Latin name. I will
have to adapt a phrase of my papa: it is a confusion of the first
waters.

If time begins at the start of the BB, there is no prior about
it. Please stop thinking about these things, it can cause brain
damage in the wrong head.
 
R

rf

dorayme said:
Neredbojias <[email protected]> wrote:
If time begins at the start of the BB, there is prior about it.

You miss the point. Both of you. Time did not "begin" at the big bang. It
started to exist, from our point of view. Loose and sloopy I know but, lets
proceed and hopefully clarify a bit...

The big bang did not "start", so to say that time did not exist until after
"the start of the big bang" is erroneous. The big bang simply is. It is a
boundary condition, from our point of view. On our side of that boundary
time exists. On the other side, well, ?

Mr Hawking opines that the big bang is, indeed, a singularity in our concept
of space/time. As such one can not state anything at all about conditions
"on the other side" of that singularity. On this side we have time and space
as we think we know it. On the other side we cannot even conjecture but
there is/was/will be probably no such thing as time and/or space. For us
"the other side" does not exist (from our point of view) as it is not
accessable to us, but we can be sure that different rules apply. There is
probably no HTML.

The jury is still out on the "big crunch" at the other end of our concept of
time. Depends on how much dark matter there is laying about, which is still
under dispute AFAIK.
Please stop thinking about these things, they can cause brain
damage in the wrong heads.

Not really. A knowledge of higher mathematics makes it quite easy to
understand. One cannot poke a stick at it, nor explain it clearly to the
layman, but one can debate it ad nauseum, in the arena of the mathematics.
 
Ad

Advertisements

N

Neredbojias

My God, I only had one glass of wine with dinner tonight!

How big was the glass?
This mistake of yours does not even have a Latin name. I will
have to adapt a phrase of my papa: it is a confusion of the first
waters.

If time begins at the start of the BB, there is no prior about
it. Please stop thinking about these things, it can cause brain
damage in the wrong head.

He he he, I'm beginning to think you are correct. Fortunately, I only
suffer these maladies at fairly infrequent cycles, but the toll can be
significant. I s'pose I'll hop "on the wagon" for a while now and dally
with the simplicities of htmlish stuff and the family of ie deviants.

--
Neredbojias

Once I had a little dog
Who wagged its tail spritely.
But it walked by the harvestor
And now is shorter slightly.
 

Top