Any way to tell a table to go "as wide as necessary"?

[Will Hartung]

I have a table for a report. It can get wide, but that's no big deal. I
don't mind that it can get wide.

What I do mind, though, is the browser doing its damndest to smash the thing
down to get it to fit the window (to no avail). It crams it down until it
can't cram any more and then pops up the horizaontal scroll bar, rather than
just "let go", and set the table free, scrollbar be damned.

Is there a way to tell the browser that my content area is "ok" to make as
big as necessary to keep it from crunching up my table?

The detail is that the table can show either a single month, a quarter, or a
year of data, and (being lazy) I'd rather not have to set the table widths,
and just let the thing flow naturally, but not necessarily wrapping all of
the text etc.

The other detail is that with the same markup, I change the content-type so
it can (as an option) show up in Excel (where this isn't a problem at all).
But I want it to look as nice as practical in the browser without having to
do a bunch of custom markup or an Excel specific version, etc.

Regards,

Will Hartung
(wi***@msoft.co m)

[Mark Parnell]

Previously in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Will Hartung
<wi***@msoft.co m> said:

Is there a way to tell the browser that my content area is "ok" to make as
big as necessary to keep it from crunching up my table?

This is the default behaviour for tables. They will stretch as wide as
necessary to accommodate the content. If your table is not behaving that
way, post a URI.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[me]

"Will Hartung" <wi***@msoft.co m> wrote in message
news:39******** *****@individua l.net...

I have a table for a report. It can get wide, but that's no big deal. I
don't mind that it can get wide.

What I do mind, though, is the browser doing its damndest to smash the thing down to get it to fit the window (to no avail). It crams it down until it
can't cram any more and then pops up the horizaontal scroll bar, rather than just "let go", and set the table free, scrollbar be damned.

Is there a way to tell the browser that my content area is "ok" to make as
big as necessary to keep it from crunching up my table?

The detail is that the table can show either a single month, a quarter, or a year of data, and (being lazy) I'd rather not have to set the table widths, and just let the thing flow naturally, but not necessarily wrapping all of
the text etc.

The other detail is that with the same markup, I change the content-type so it can (as an option) show up in Excel (where this isn't a problem at all). But I want it to look as nice as practical in the browser without having to do a bunch of custom markup or an Excel specific version, etc.

Regards,

Will Hartung
(wi***@msoft.co m)

See the following:
Good Luck,
me

<td nowrap>Stuff you don't want to wrap.</td>

[Adrienne]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "me" <anonymous@_.co m> writing in
news:11******** *****@corp.supe rnews.com:

"Will Hartung" <wi***@msoft.co m> wrote in message
news:39******** *****@individua l.net...

I have a table for a report. It can get wide, but that's no big deal.
I don't mind that it can get wide.

Is there a way to tell the browser that my content area is "ok" to
make as big as necessary to keep it from crunching up my table?

See the following:
Good Luck,
me

<td nowrap>Stuff you don't want to wrap.</td>

Depreciated

Better:

td {white-space: nowrap}
--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

[me]

"Adrienne" <ar********@sbc global.net> wrote in message
news:Xn******** *************** *****@207.115.6 3.158...

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "me" <anonymous@_.co m> writing in
news:11******** *****@corp.supe rnews.com:

"Will Hartung" <wi***@msoft.co m> wrote in message
news:39******** *****@individua l.net...

I have a table for a report. It can get wide, but that's no big deal.
I don't mind that it can get wide.

Is there a way to tell the browser that my content area is "ok" to
make as big as necessary to keep it from crunching up my table?

See the following:
Good Luck,
me

<td nowrap>Stuff you don't want to wrap.</td>

Depreciated

Better:

td {white-space: nowrap}
--
Adrienne Boswell

I'm curious, how is this better and by whom is it depreciated?
Signed,
me

[Jim Moe]

me wrote:

<td nowrap>Stuff you don't want to wrap.</td>
Deprecated

Better:

td {white-space: nowrap}

I'm curious, how is this better

It applies nowrap to all td's with a single line of code. No need to
have the deprecated tag in every td. It's scope of application is
controlled with ids or classes, and cascading.
and by whom is it deprecated?

W3C.

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

[me]

"Jim Moe" <jm************ ***@sohnen-moe.com> wrote in message
news:Fb******** ************@gi ganews.com...

me wrote:

<td nowrap>Stuff you don't want to wrap.</td>

Deprecated

Better:

td {white-space: nowrap}

I'm curious, how is this better

It applies nowrap to all td's with a single line of code. No need to
have the deprecated tag in every td. It's scope of application is
controlled with ids or classes, and cascading.

That may be of use to the OP if he uses (or knows how to use) a style sheet.

and by whom is it deprecated?

W3C

No offense but I don't stop using code that works because the w3c thinks
it's depreciated but YMMV. Thank you for your reply, the OP now has a better
idea of why he might want to use that as an alternative to what I suggested.
Signed,
me

[Jim Moe]

me wrote:

and by whom is it deprecated?

W3C

No offense but I don't stop using code that works because the w3c thinks
it's depreciated but YMMV.

Deprecated, not depreciated. :-)
The W3C does not *think* it is deprecated, they deprecated it
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#ede f-TD>. That means it
disappears from the HTML standard in the next revision. Which means that
user agents (browsers) conforming to the new standard no longer recognize
the tag. (Of course there is always "quirks" mode.)
Using CSS has a few advantages:
1. Generally a *lot* less markup, especially in terms of tags.
2. Style is concentrated in a few files rather than spread all over a site.
3. It makes the markup code less sensitive to browser vagaries.
4. It allows web pages to age gracefully as standards move on.

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

[Mark Parnell]

Previously in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Jim Moe
<jm************ ***@sohnen-moe.com> said:

The W3C does not *think* it is deprecated, they deprecated it
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#ede f-TD>. That means it
disappears from the HTML standard in the next revision. Which means that
user agents (browsers) conforming to the new standard no longer recognize
the tag. (Of course there is always "quirks" mode.)
No, it means they don't *have* to support it. It is unlikely they will
drop support any time soon though, given the number of legacy pages (and
unfortunately, new ones) that use deprecated elements and attributes.
Quirks mode or Standards mode don't have any effect on which
elements/attributes are support AFAIK.
Using CSS has a few advantages:
1. Generally a *lot* less markup, especially in terms of tags.
2. Style is concentrated in a few files rather than spread all over a site.
Indeed. Changes to styles requires changing just one file (or possibly a
couple), instead of every page on the site. If done well, the entire
design of a site can be changed without touching the HTML.
3. It makes the markup code less sensitive to browser vagaries.
Not sure I agree with that one.
4. It allows web pages to age gracefully as standards move on.

5. The CSS files are generally cached, so only need to be downloaded
once, rather than downloaded again with every new page.
6. There are some things only possible with CSS.
7. Browsers that don't support CSS can safely ignore it, while the
content remains accessible and well-structured.
8. It is *logical*. The HTML handles the content, the CSS handles the
presentation.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[me]

"Jim Moe" <jm************ ***@sohnen-moe.com> wrote in message
news:8M******** ************@gi ganews.com...

me wrote:

and by whom is it deprecated?

W3C
No offense but I don't stop using code that works because the w3c thinks
it's depreciated but YMMV.

Deprecated, not depreciated. :-)

Adrianne's spelling not mine.
The W3C does not *think* it is deprecated, they deprecated it
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#ede f-TD>. That means it
disappears from the HTML standard in the next revision.
A standard suggested by an agency with no power to enforce it, thankfully.
Which means that
user agents (browsers) conforming to the new standard no longer recognize
the tag.

That's unfortunate for those user agents because IMO <td nowrap> will be in
use long for some time to come. In any case my opinion is that IE will still
recognize the tag so there's no problem.

[snip css]

I know all about CSS but the important question is does the OP.
Signed,
me