Hello

Please take a look at this table:
http://web.ss.pub.ro/~bat/HelloWorld.php

Now the table has the width property set to 100%, which should mean the
width available to the browser. Does this mean the width of the browser's
window ? On 800x600 IE6.0 the window has a horzontal scroll bar, wich I
don't want to be there. You know, sometimes, with other tables, it works...

How can I make the table so that:
- the whole table width is the browser's window width
- the first colomn of the table has it's intrinsic width (minimum width
required, 0*)
- and the second table has the remaining width, no less than a given
minimum width ?

I tried setting the table width to 100% with CSS (the width of the body
element); it didn't work

--
Thank you
Timothy Madden
---------------------------
And I don't wanna miss a thing

Timothy Madden wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hello
>
> Please take a look at this table:
> http://web.ss.pub.ro/~bat/HelloWorld.php
>
> Now the table has the width property set to 100%, which should mean the
> width available to the browser. Does this mean the width of the browser's
> window ? On 800x600 IE6.0 the window has a horzontal scroll bar,[/color]

Not only on 800x600, it has a scrollbar at 1280x1024 as well...
[color=blue]
> wich I
> don't want to be there. You know, sometimes, with other tables, it works...
>
> How can I make the table so that:
> - the whole table width is the browser's window width[/color]

By setting the width at 100%, or rather 99%, to avoid the
horizontal scrollbar in some browsers because of margins of
body and stuff.
[color=blue]
> - the first colomn of the table has it's intrinsic width (minimum width
> required, 0*)[/color]

you did that already, it seems?
[color=blue]
> - and the second table has the remaining width, no less than a given
> minimum width ?[/color]

you mean second column?
[color=blue]
> I tried setting the table width to 100% with CSS (the width of the body
> element); it didn't work[/color]

That may be because the line
/usr/local/etc/Suids:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/dt/bin:/usr/openwin/bin:/usr/proc/bin:/usr/ccs/bin:/usr/openwin/bin/demo:/var/qmail/bin:/usr/local/java2sdk/bin:/usr/local/teTeX/bin/sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1:/usr/local/pgsql/bin:/usr/local/oracle/Soft/805/bin:/opt/bin:/usr/local/oracle/bin:.:/usr/local/sbin
just can't wrap.
Well, it dus wrap in IE, but only because of the hyphen in
sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1 ;-)


--
Els

Mente humana é como pára-quedas; funciona melhor aberta.

Els <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I tried setting the table width to 100% with CSS (the width of the
>> body element); it didn't work[/color]
>
> That may be because the line
> /usr/local/etc/Suids:/usr/ - -
> /bin:/usr/local/oracle/bin:.:/usr/local/sbin just can't wrap.[/color]

Quite right. The browser either expands the table to fit, or lets the
content overflow, or truncates it. This depends on many things,
including the setting of the table-layout property (in CSS).

Or it _could_ wrap, but browsers are not required to wrap it. Actually
the OP's page, or service, seems to have goals similar to the simple
"echo HTTP headers" script that I wrote recently, and I encountered
similar problems. The background (namely browsers not wrapping strings
with no whitespace and ways to deal with it) are explained at
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/nobr.html#suggest

What I do in practice (see the effect at
http://www.cs.tut.fi/cgi-bin/run/~jkorpela/headers.cgi )
is to insert <wbr> after each comma and after each slash in the cell
that shows an HTTP header value. Those headers seem to use spaces
rather sparingly, so something needs to be done. I haven't figured out
a simple way to defeat IE's eagerness to break a line after a hyphen
here, so I will just tolerate things like application/vns.ms-
excel

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

It seems "Timothy Madden" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:[color=blue]
>Now the table has the width property set to 100%, which should mean the
>width available to the browser. Does this mean the width of the browser's
>window ?[/color]

Yes, however the width="100%" is a _suggestion_ that gets overridden
by content.

Because your "path" entry is very very very long and contains no
spaces, the table is about four times the width of my window.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

Ok, Thank you.
I got it now.
Too bad HTML doesn't have more options about text wrapping

--
Timothy Madden
-------------------------
And I don't wanna miss a thing

Stan Brown wrote:
[color=blue]
> It seems "Timothy Madden" wrote in
> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
>[color=green]
>>Now the table has the width property set to 100%, which should mean the
>>width available to the browser. Does this mean the width of the browser's
>>window ?[/color]
>
>
> Yes, however the width="100%" is a _suggestion_ that gets overridden
> by content.
>
> Because your "path" entry is very very very long and contains no
> spaces, the table is about four times the width of my window.
>[/color]


There are other issues too.

1- <table width="100%" ...> is 100% of the available width as given by
its immediate containing parent in the containment hierarchy: in this
case, the <body>. Now, the default css declaration for the body element
in MSIE 6 for windows (in both rendering modes) is with a
margin: 15px 10px
which is NOT overriden by the file
http://web.ss.pub.ro/~bat/HelloWorld.css
The whole table could not be as wide as the browser's window width
anyway, regardless of the content issue

2- MSIE 6 for windows has a major bug on overflow:visible

3- The default css declaration for the root element in MSIE 6 is
border { medium #000000 inset } // not 0px none;
overflow { visible scroll } // not overflow: auto;

DU

Timothy Madden <batman@rmv.spam.home.ro> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Too bad HTML doesn't have more options about text wrapping[/color]

Actually HTML has lots of options for text wrapping. You just need two
things: to understand the Unicode line breaking rules and control
characters for it, which might take just a few years, and to wait for
browser vendors understand and implement them, which probably takes
considerably longer. :-)

Seriously, you're right. Things like <nobr> and <wbr> should have been
standardized long ago.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html