How to detect table width or height?

[Dennis]

Is there some way --using, say, DOM or javascript-- to detect the
current pixel width and/or height of a relatively sized table or of
one of its columns or rows. I'm going to be writing javascript to
adjust my page to the viewer's browser window dimensions and this
would sure be great information to have.

Thanks ....
Dennis

[Andrew Thompson]

"Simon" <no**@none.co m> wrote in message news:3F******** ******@none.com ...

Andrew Thompson wrote:
<<Snipped>>

.... Me: "Sure, what did you have in mind?"

<snip lot's of stuff re flash and accessibility>

How about an intelligent usenet post?

I am not sure if your bizarre post actually relates to
me or not, since you snipped the entire original
conversation before going off into your little monologue.

The only post I recall making to this thread is..
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?h...ght&rnum=111&t
hl=1013060838,1 011055581,10107 95930,101056698 3,1010546681,10 15707281,101563 0
853,1015610660, 1015474499,1015 015039,10155860 98,1015014975&s eekm=qaf6qvg4bo 7
m0mug25mkk9h2qt 8ib3bm12%404ax. com#link114

It mentioned nothing about flash.

--
Andrew Thompson
* http://www.PhySci.org/ PhySci software suite
* http://www.1point1C.org/ 1.1C - Superluminal!
* http://www.AThompson.info/andrew/ personal site

[Neal]

"Andrew Thompson" <an******@bigNO SPAMpond.com> wrote in message
news:gJ******** **********@news-server.bigpond. net.au...

I am not sure if your bizarre post actually relates to
me or not, since you snipped the entire original
conversation before going off into your little monologue.

I didn't perceive his post, amusing as ity was, to have anything to
necessarily do with yours.

I do perceive, and assured I'm new here, that some people in this forum have
a lot of grouchy days.

[Stan Brown]

In article <3F************ **@none.com> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Simon <no**@none.co m> wrote:

it is illegal in the USA, Australia and the UK to have a
site not accessible to the disabled. AOL and the Australian Olympics web
site have already been sued and lost"

Citations, please? Specifically, please show where "it is illegal in
the USA to have a site not accessible to the disabled", and cite the
specific case in which "AOL [was] sued and lost".

I agree 100% that Web sites _should_ be accessible to the disabled,
but to the best of my understanding such a general law is impossible
in the US because of that pesky First Amendment.

Perhaps you are thinking about Federal laws or regulations covering
government Web sites? But that would of course not affect AOL.

--
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/

[Stan Brown]

In article <gJ************ ******@news-server.bigpond. net.au> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Andrew Thompson
<an******@bigNO SPAMpond.com> wrote:

The only post I recall making to this thread is..
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?h...ght&rnum=111&t
hl=1013060838, 1011055581,1010 795930,10105669 83,1010546681,1 015707281,10156 30
853,1015610660 ,1015474499,101 5015039,1015586 098,1015014975& seekm=qaf6qvg4b o7
m0mug25mkk9h2q t8ib3bm12%404ax .com#link114

If you're going to post an article reference, please trim out all
the useless extra fields. Better yet, just post the message ID.

--
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/

[Andrew Thompson]

"Stan Brown" <th************ @fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MP******** *************** *@news.odyssey. net...

In article <gJ************ ******@news-server.bigpond. net.au> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Andrew Thompson
<an******@bigNO SPAMpond.com> wrote:

The only post I recall making to this thread is..

.... If you're going to post an article reference, please trim out all
the useless extra fields. Better yet, just post the message ID.

I've never figured how to do that Stan, I am not even
sure which are the 'useless extra fields'..

I'll look into it though (those long URL's are horrid)

--
Andrew Thompson
* http://www.PhySci.org/ PhySci software suite
* http://www.1point1C.org/ 1.1C - Superluminal!
* http://www.AThompson.info/andrew/ personal site

[Stan Brown]

In article <zh************ *****@news-server.bigpond. net.au> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Andrew Thompson
<an******@bigNO SPAMpond.com> wrote:

"Stan Brown" <th************ @fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MP******* *************** **@news.odyssey .net...

If you're going to post an article reference, please trim out all
the useless extra fields. Better yet, just post the message ID.

I've never figured how to do that Stan, I am not even
sure which are the 'useless extra fields'..

The only field that is needed is selm= or threadm= .

An alternative is to paste the big giant URL into http://tinyurl.com
and then post the resulting tiny URL here. That's less than ideal
because then if _either_ google _or_ tinyurl is down, the referenced
article can't be viewed. Also some people are a little suspicious of
those URL-shortening sites. I know that snurl.com, for instance,
stores a cookie on my computer.

But again, if you simply post the message ID anyone can retrieve the
article since Google allows archive searched by message ID (and some
newsreaders like Gravity have the ability built in).

--
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/

[Simon]

Stan Brown wrote:

In article <3F************ **@none.com> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Simon <no**@none.co m> wrote:

it is illegal in the USA, Australia and the UK to have a
site not accessible to the disabled. AOL and the Australian Olympics web
site have already been sued and lost"

Citations, please? Specifically, please show where "it is illegal in
the USA to have a site not accessible to the disabled", and cite the
specific case in which "AOL [was] sued and lost".

AOL: http://www.nfb.org/bm/bm99/bm991201.htm

I have read somewhere how much AOL settled the matter but I can't find
the figure off hand. It certainly wasn't peanuts.

Aussie olympics: http://www.webaim.org/coordination/law/australia/#blm

I agree 100% that Web sites _should_ be accessible to the disabled,
but to the best of my understanding such a general law is impossible
in the US because of that pesky First Amendment.

Perhaps you are thinking about Federal laws or regulations covering
government Web sites? But that would of course not affect AOL.

I was indeed thinking of government web sites for the 508 laws. I didn't
think to be so clear, my apologies for that.

--

Simon Day
Free desktop wallpapers of Torbay at: http://www.simonday.com

[Stan Brown]

In article <3F************ **@none.com> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Simon <no**@none.co m> wrote:

it is illegal in the USA, Australia and the UK to have a
site not accessible to the disabled. AOL and the Australian Olympics web
site have already been sued and lost"

Stan Brown wrote:

Citations, please? Specifically, please show where "it is illegal in
the USA to have a site not accessible to the disabled", and cite the
specific case in which "AOL [was] sued and lost".

In article <3F************ **@none.com> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Simon <no**@none.co m> wrote:AOL: http://www.nfb.org/bm/bm99/bm991201.htm
Thanks for providing this, but I don't think it actually supports
your position.

The ADA, according to your citation, applies to "public
accommodations" . It is not at all clear -- according to your
citation -- whether AOL is a public accommodation.

I happen to agree that AOL _should_ be accessible to the visually
handicapped; we all should. But even after reading your citation I
fail to see that by not being accessible they are violating any law.
I have read somewhere how much AOL settled the matter but I can't find
the figure off hand. It certainly wasn't peanuts.

Assuming (and meaning no disrespect) that your memory is correct and
AOL did settle, that still doesn't prove that what they did was
illegal. Suits are settled every day because people feel it would be
more expensive to carry the matter to a conclusion, or they don't
want adverse publicity (probably AOL's motive here), or they simply
want to put an end to litigation and get on with other things.

--
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/