By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
437,676 Members | 1,763 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 437,676 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

To hide a tag

P: n/a
Hi at all

I'ld want to hide a tag during display on screen and I want to show the tag
when I print the page.

I try:

<td style="display:none">

or

<div style="display:none">

<td></div>

but the <tdis always displayed and it work also on screen

How can I do please?

Best regards and thank you in advance
Mar 8 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
10 Replies


P: n/a
Scripsit Paolo:
>@media screen { .print-only { display: none; } }

Problem solved?

NO!
You didn't apply the advice properly.

To get more specific information, enter more specific information of
what you tried. This means telling us the URL.

It's generally counter-productive to spot people's errors unless they
show us the URL. Sometimes it is possible, but it will teach them (and
others) bad habits. So is it immoral for me continue before we have the
URL? Maybe, but I feel a bit bad guy today...
I try to apply that you wrote but the result is to hide the content
of the second <tdand not only the <tdtag
What? Are you really trying to hide _tags_ and not elements? (The
confusion is common, but it was already correct in this thread. Please
stand corrected until you understand the point.) And what is "the second
<td>" as opposite to "the <td>tag"?
I'ld wanted to display my tables into a single column on screen and
into two columns printing the page to have printed one page only.
Sounds strange. I wonder what the real use case is.
I wrote here a little sample
URL, please.
<style>
Use valid markup. Moreover, close all table-related elements with
exlplicit end tags to avoid browser bugs.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Mar 9 '08 #2

P: n/a
"Jukka K. Korpela"
wrote
URL, please.
sorry but

I have not put online the page because is php and because it do not wark
still now
>
>What?
>Are you really trying to hide _tags_ and not elements? (The
confusion is common, but it was already correct in this thread. Please
stand corrected until you understand the point.)

What want you tell me with this phrase?

I do not understand fine this
>Are you really trying to hide _tags_ and not elements?


It is not the some?

please try to help me with a little sample

Thank you
Mar 9 '08 #3

P: n/a
Paolo vertrouwde ons toe:
"Jukka K. Korpela"
wrote
[snipped]
>What? Are you really trying to hide _tags_ and not elements?

It is not the some?
please try to help me with a little sample

Thank you
If you do not know the difference between *tag* and *element*
it is time for you to read up on HTML-mark up.

This is a tag: <td>

This is an element: <td>content</td>

Good luck.

--
Rob
Mar 9 '08 #4

P: n/a
In article <aP********************@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi >,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote:
Scripsit Jonathan N. Little:
Removing a random TD from a table without compensating on other rows
almost always buggers the table display across browsers...

... And there is nothing in the odd concept that imples that
the table will be "buggered".
I was shocked that Jonathan should use this concept without
asking permission from us Australians.

--
dorayme
Mar 9 '08 #5

P: n/a
On 2008-03-09, dorayme wrote:
In article <aP********************@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi >,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote:
>Scripsit Jonathan N. Little:
Removing a random TD from a table without compensating on other rows
almost always buggers the table display across browsers...

... And there is nothing in the odd concept that imples that
the table will be "buggered".

I was shocked that Jonathan should use this concept without
asking permission from us Australians.
Did the Aussies ask permission from the Brits?

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Mar 13 '08 #6

P: n/a
In article <23***************************@TEKSAVVY.COM>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote:
On 2008-03-09, dorayme wrote:
In article <aP********************@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi >,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote:
Scripsit Jonathan N. Little:

Removing a random TD from a table without compensating on other rows
almost always buggers the table display across browsers...

... And there is nothing in the odd concept that imples that
the table will be "buggered".
I was shocked that Jonathan should use this concept without
asking permission from us Australians.

Did the Aussies ask permission from the Brits?
C'mon Chris, I don't think you understand how Australian this is.
Perhaps I can help. It is so Australian that the Brits got it
from the Australians through backwards causation.

--
dorayme
Mar 13 '08 #7

P: n/a
dorayme wrote:
In article <23***************************@TEKSAVVY.COM>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote:
>On 2008-03-09, dorayme wrote:
>>In article <aP********************@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi >,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote:

Scripsit Jonathan N. Little:

Removing a random TD from a table without compensating on other rows
almost always buggers the table display across browsers...
... And there is nothing in the odd concept that imples that
the table will be "buggered".
I was shocked that Jonathan should use this concept without
asking permission from us Australians.
Did the Aussies ask permission from the Brits?

C'mon Chris, I don't think you understand how Australian this is.
Perhaps I can help. It is so Australian that the Brits got it
from the Australians through backwards causation.
This seems all Greek to me ;-)
PhilK (sweltering in OZ)

--
http://kempster.info
Mar 14 '08 #8

P: n/a
In article <13*************@corp.supernews.com>,
Phil Kempster <ph**@kempster.infowrote:
dorayme wrote:
In article <23***************************@TEKSAVVY.COM>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote:
On 2008-03-09, dorayme wrote:
In article <aP********************@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi >,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote:

Scripsit Jonathan N. Little:

Removing a random TD from a table without compensating on other rows
almost always buggers the table display across browsers...
... And there is nothing in the odd concept that imples that
the table will be "buggered".
I was shocked that Jonathan should use this concept without
asking permission from us Australians.
Did the Aussies ask permission from the Brits?
C'mon Chris, I don't think you understand how Australian this is.
Perhaps I can help. It is so Australian that the Brits got it
from the Australians through backwards causation.
This seems all Greek to me ;-)
PhilK (sweltering in OZ)
The sort of causation that people are used to, especially
pommies, is either of the instantaneous (up to the speed of
light) variety:

President Bush presses the horn ring on the steering wheel of his
pickup on his farm down Texas way and the horn blares, a steer
jumps out of his way.

or of the forward/future directed kind:

Bush presses a button and a cruise missile with a nuclear bomb
wipes out Tehran several minutes later.

There was an accusation that "bugger" was a Brit word even though
it is used in a particularly famous and pointed manner in
Australia.

To cut a long story short, the grounds for the suggestion that we
owe it to the Brits may be based on these conceptions of
causation. But if something in the future can cause something in
the past, and the Brits using "bugger" is a case of this, then
Australians do not owe any debt to the Brits for it.

My evidence, after much research on this matter suggests that the
Brits and therefore the Yanks, got it from us. But it is too OT
to go into here. Please send $10 (not US at the moment if you
don't mind) for more on this.

--
dorayme
Mar 14 '08 #9

P: n/a
dorayme wrote:
My evidence, after much research on this matter suggests that the
Brits and therefore the Yanks, got it from us. But it is too OT
to go into here. Please send $10 (not US at the moment if you
don't mind) for more on this.
Does the source real matter? I love etymology, but since when can any
group claim exclusive rights for the usage of any word?

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Mar 14 '08 #10

P: n/a
In article <64***************************@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@central.netwrote:
dorayme wrote:
My evidence, after much research on this matter suggests that the
Brits and therefore the Yanks, got it from us. But it is too OT
to go into here. Please send $10 (not US at the moment if you
don't mind) for more on this.

Does the source real matter? I love etymology, but since when can any
group claim exclusive rights for the usage of any word?
I never thought of things in this light. You know, you are right,
it does not matter. What was I thinking?

------------
(But... psst... if anyone still wants the lowdown ... send $5
instead...)

--
dorayme
Mar 14 '08 #11

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.