By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,624 Members | 2,179 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,624 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Problem with table width?

P: n/a
Take a look at this page:

http://www.webinnovation.no/test/test.htm

Why is the left table with the text "Menu" not 160 pixels as stated in the
HTML code?

Olav
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
5 Replies


P: n/a
Els
Olav Tollefsen wrote:
Take a look at this page:

http://www.webinnovation.no/test/test.htm

Why is the left table with the text "Menu" not 160 pixels
as stated in the HTML code?


The whole table is 785, and 160 is 1/4.906 of that, roughly 1
fifth. What I see in my browser is your 'menu' being 1 fifth of
the width of the whole table. Can't be bothered to count pixels
though. Too small.

--
Els
http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vo. O resto imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
In article <40********@news.broadpark.no>, "Olav Tollefsen" <x@y.com>
wrote:
http://www.webinnovation.no/test/test.htm

Why is the left table
Tablecell.
with the text "Menu" not 160 pixels as stated in the
HTML code?


Here it is, using Safari. Why do you use tables for layout when CSS can
do a better job?

--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
"Els" <el*********@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:Xn****************@130.133.1.4...
Olav Tollefsen wrote:
Take a look at this page:

http://www.webinnovation.no/test/test.htm

Why is the left table with the text "Menu" not 160 pixels
as stated in the HTML code?


The whole table is 785, and 160 is 1/4.906 of that, roughly 1
fifth. What I see in my browser is your 'menu' being 1 fifth of
the width of the whole table. Can't be bothered to count pixels
though. Too small.


Which browser did you test with? It doesn't look OK in IE 6.0. It looks OK
in Mozilla 1.7.1.

Why the big difference for this simple code?

Olav
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Els
Olav Tollefsen wrote:
"Els" <el*********@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:Xn****************@130.133.1.4...
Olav Tollefsen wrote:
> Take a look at this page:
>
> http://www.webinnovation.no/test/test.htm
>
> Why is the left table with the text "Menu" not 160
> pixels as stated in the HTML code?
The whole table is 785, and 160 is 1/4.906 of that,
roughly 1 fifth. What I see in my browser is your 'menu'
being 1 fifth of the width of the whole table. Can't be
bothered to count pixels though. Too small.


Which browser did you test with? It doesn't look OK in IE
6.0. It looks OK in Mozilla 1.7.1.


Firebird. I see the difference now, yes.
Why the big difference for this simple code?


Maybe it's because you used XHTML doctype, which according to
the Specs and the Validator doesn't support the html width
attribute.

http://tinyurl.com/4yu8l

--
Els
http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vo. O resto imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Olav Tollefsen wrote:
Why the big difference for this simple code?


Looks like an old-fashioned problem for old-fashioned design
techniques. IE has historically done strange things when one mixes
HTML and CSS sizing and units (pixels, percent, implicit).

Why are you declaring this to be XHTML/1.1, when it isn't? - the HTML
validator reports errors, and the CSS validator refuses to even look
at the CSS because of the XHTML errors. It's generally considered a
courtesy on this group to fix syntax errors for oneself before asking
the group for advice on problems.

I would recommend taking away HTML sizing (leave non-CSS-capable
client agents to do their own table sizing - it usually comes out well
enough), and do any CSS sizing in consistent units (usually I'd
recommend percent, unless you have specifically pixel-sized objects to
accommodate).

Even better, don't use tables for layout.

Jul 20 '05 #6

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.