By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
437,676 Members | 1,759 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.

div width in table cell adding extra space.

P: n/a
Hello please help,

I have a table cell with a div in it. The div has a width of 300px.
but when it is rendered it puts extra space into the table cell.

Here's the style

<style>
#treecontainer
{
HEIGHT: 100%;
BACKGROUND: #ffffff;
overflow: hidden;
BORDER-TOP: 1px solid;
BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px solid;
BORDER-LEFT: 2px solid;
BORDER-RIGHT: 2px solid;
WIDTH: 230px;
DISPLAY: inline;
position: static;
}
</style>

and here is the HTML fragment...

<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
style="width:250px;">
<tr height="10">
<td></td>
<td><img src="./images/top-lf-lb.gif" border="0" /></td>
<td width="100%" background="./images/top-repeat-strip-lb.gif"></td>
<td><img src="./images/top-rt-lb.gif" border="0" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3" style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px;
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<div id="treecontainer" style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px;
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr height="10" id="r3">
<td width="3" valign="top">
</td>
<td><img src="./images/bottom-lf-lb.gif" border="0"></td>
<td width="100%" background="./images/bottom-repeat-strip-lb.gif">
<img src="./images/sp.gif" border="0"></td>
<td><img src="./images/bottom-rt-lb.gif" border="0"></td>
</tr>
</table>
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
23 Replies


P: n/a
MattB wrote:
Hello please help,


Not until you learn not to multi-post.

http://smjg.port5.com/faqs/usenet/xpost.html

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
On 28 Jul 2004 08:20:49 -0700, MattB in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
Hello please help, I have a table cell with a div in it. The div has a width of 300px.
but when it is rendered it puts extra space into the table cell.


The problem is - You shouldn't put divs into tables! Tables into divs
only.

--
ATTENTION
This room is fullfilled mit special electronische equippment.
Fingergrabbing and pressing the cnoeppkes from the computers is
allowed for die experts only! So all the "lefthanders" stay away
and do not disturben the brainstorming von here working
intelligencies. Otherwise you will be out thrown and kicked
anderswhere! Also: please keep still and only watchen
astaunished the blinkenlights.
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
marathon <M@linux.ca> wrote:
On 28 Jul 2004 08:20:49 -0700, MattB in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
Hello please help,

I have a table cell with a div in it. The div has a width of 300px.
but when it is rendered it puts extra space into the table cell.


The problem is - You shouldn't put divs into tables! Tables into divs
only.


Why?
If you mean that you shouldn't use <table><div> directly then you are
correct, but <td><div> is permitted and might be justified for some
complex tabular data.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 07:57:17 +0100, Steve Pugh in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
marathon <M@linux.ca> wrote:
On 28 Jul 2004 08:20:49 -0700, MattB in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
Hello please help,

I have a table cell with a div in it. The div has a width of 300px.
but when it is rendered it puts extra space into the table cell.


The problem is - You shouldn't put divs into tables! Tables into divs
only.

Why?
If you mean that you shouldn't use <table><div> directly then you are
correct, but <td><div> is permitted and might be justified for some
complex tabular data.


Why? Because they cause issues, similiar to what the OP is experiencing.
As soon as one put's a div in table, then don't be surprised if one has
problems. <shrug>

--
ATTENTION
This room is fullfilled mit special electronische equippment.
Fingergrabbing and pressing the cnoeppkes from the computers is
allowed for die experts only! So all the "lefthanders" stay away
and do not disturben the brainstorming von here working
intelligencies. Otherwise you will be out thrown and kicked
anderswhere! Also: please keep still and only watchen
astaunished the blinkenlights.
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
marathon wrote:
Steve Pugh wrote:
marathon <M@linux.ca> wrote:

The problem is - You shouldn't put divs into tables! Tables into
divs only.

Why?


Why? Because they cause issues, similiar to what the OP is
experiencing. As soon as one put's a div in table, then don't be
surprised if one has problems. <shrug>


Are you just making this up as you go along? How does putting a <div>
inside a <td> cause problems?

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
marathon <M@linux.ca> wrote:
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
marathon <M@linux.ca> wrote:
The problem is - You shouldn't put divs into tables! Tables into divs
only.
Why?
If you mean that you shouldn't use <table><div> directly then you are
correct, but <td><div> is permitted and might be justified for some
complex tabular data.


Why? Because they cause issues, similiar to what the OP is experiencing.


As far as I can see the OP's problem is caused by IE's peculiar
handling of a td with colspan>1 and _any_ contents with a width set in
CSS. (Probably compounded by triggering quirks mode, but without a URL
we can't really tell.)

In other words the problem would be the same if <p> or <ol> or <table>
was used instead of <div>. Do you recommend not using them inside
tables as well?
As soon as one put's a div in table, then don't be surprised if one has
problems. <shrug>


<shrug> indeed. <td><div>...</div></td> can be used to solve a lot of
problems in older browsers (e.g. workarounds for IE's box model bugs).

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
The solution found, not to say it is the only one or the right one,
etc. but as I only know the css styles I really need and only try out
various ones I think might sort out these little fluxes in display.

first setup other tags to act like tables

<style>
DIV {
TABLE-LAYOUT: fixed; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse;display: table;
}
P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN:
0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; display: table-row;
}
HTML P {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: -1px;
}
SPAN {
BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 0px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP:
#000000 0px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0px;
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 0px solid;
WIDTH: 30px; PADDING-TOP: 0px;
BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 0px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff; display:
table-cell;
}
HTML SPAN {
DISPLAY: inline-block; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px
}
</style>

then create a table like structure with your div in it...
I never worked out how to mimick the background image of a table cell
in a <span tag acting like a table cell with a

<div>
<p><span><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"
height="10px" width="224px"><tr><td><IMG src="../images/top-lf-lb.gif"
border=0 ></td><td background=../images/top-repeat-strip-lb.gif ><IMG
src="../images/sp.gif" border="0" width="200px" height="1px"
/></td><td><IMG src="../images/top-rt-lb.gif" border=0
</td></tr></table></SPAN></P> <p>
<span>
<div id="treecontainer" style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px;
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px;WIDTH: 230px;
"/>
</span>
</p>
<p ><span><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"
height="10px" width="224px"><tr><td colspan="3"><IMG
src="../images/bottom-lf-lb.gif" border=0 ></td><td
background="../images/bottom-repeat-strip-lb.gif"><IMG
src="../images/sp.gif" border="0" width="200px" height="1px"
/></td><td><IMG src="../images/bottom-rt-lb.gif" border=0 ></SPAN></P>
</DIV>
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message news:<as********************************@4ax.com>. .. marathon <M@linux.ca> wrote:
On 28 Jul 2004 08:20:49 -0700, MattB in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
Hello please help,I have a table cell with a div in it. The div has a width of 300px.
but when it is rendered it puts extra space into the table cell.


The problem is - You shouldn't put divs into tables! Tables into divs
only.


Why?
If you mean that you shouldn't use <table><div> directly then you are
correct, but <td><div> is permitted and might be justified for some
complex tabular data.

Steve

Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:18:39 -0400, Brian in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
marathon wrote:
Steve Pugh wrote:
marathon <M@linux.ca> wrote:

The problem is - You shouldn't put divs into tables! Tables into
divs only.

Why?


Why? Because they cause issues, similiar to what the OP is
experiencing. As soon as one put's a div in table, then don't be
surprised if one has problems. <shrug>

Are you just making this up as you go along? How does putting a <div>
inside a <td> cause problems?


Brian, I'm definitely not making this up as I go along, thank-you. I
think you appear to think you're talking to a grade school child.
However that aside:

I'm more of a programmer than a designer. However I do distinctly
remember the more esteemed members of the Dreamweaver Design community
saying that Divs into tables was problematic. Tables into browsers
apparently are better supported across most browser versions.

I'll quote from one particular HTML guru from the Macromedia Dreamweaver
site:
"Never put layers in tables. Netscape 4x, and Macintosh browsers
will not properly render layers in tables. If you are having
positioning problems with layers but only in certain browsers, this
is the first thing to look for. The solution would be to move the
layer(s)'s code out of the table, and re-insert it immediately above
the end <body> tag (that's the beauty of an absolutely positioned
page element - its position on the page is not dependent on its
position in the code)."

The foregoing came from this URL;

<http://www.thepattysite.com/layer_laws.cfm>

There's also other relevant threads here;

<http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=divs+into+tables&btnG=Search &meta=group%3Dmacromedia.dreamweaver.*>

or smaller URL;

<http://tinyurl.com/5u5fp>

--
ATTENTION
This room is fullfilled mit special electronische equippment.
Fingergrabbing and pressing the cnoeppkes from the computers is
allowed for die experts only! So all the "lefthanders" stay away
and do not disturben the brainstorming von here working
intelligencies. Otherwise you will be out thrown and kicked
anderswhere! Also: please keep still and only watchen
astaunished the blinkenlights.
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
marathon wrote:
marathon wrote:
As soon as one put's a div in table, then don't be surprised if
one has problems. <shrug>


I'm more of a programmer than a designer.


If HTML is not your forte, then, and with all due respect, you shouldn't
be making claims about how HTML works in browsers.
However I do distinctly remember the more esteemed members of the
Dreamweaver Design community
Although a few CIWAH regulars use Dreamweaver, citing the Dreamweaver
Design community is not going to win you points here. For one thing,
Dreamweaver is not a browser.
saying that Divs into tables was problematic.
Unless you can present a test case where a <div> placed inside a <td>
causes some special problems, this claim is baseless.
Tables into browsers apparently are better supported across most
browser versions.
Not sure what you meant here. Perhaps "Tables into <td> elements"?
I'll quote from one particular HTML guru from the Macromedia
Dreamweaver site:

"Never put layers in tables. Netscape 4x, and Macintosh browsers will
not properly render layers in tables.


<layer> != <div>

So this "HTML guru" appears to be talking about a Netscape proprietary
element that is unrelated to the <div> element. For some reason, the two
get confused by those unfamiliar with HTML, as you have done.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:07:31 -0400, marathon <M@linux.ca> wrote:
Are you just making this up as you go along? How does putting a <div>
inside a <td> cause problems?


Brian, I'm definitely not making this up as I go along, thank-you. I
think you appear to think you're talking to a grade school child.
However that aside:

I'm more of a programmer than a designer. However I do distinctly
remember the more esteemed members of the Dreamweaver Design community
saying that Divs into tables was problematic. Tables into browsers
apparently are better supported across most browser versions.

I'll quote from one particular HTML guru from the Macromedia Dreamweaver
site:

"Never put layers in tables. Netscape 4x, and Macintosh browsers
will not properly render layers in tables.


Are you talking about DIVs or LAYERs? LAYER is a Netscape 3/4
proprietary construct and forms no part of the HTML specification. It is
entirely possible that layers inside tables give problems, but that is
of no importance to anyone nowadays.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:55:26 +0200, Stephen Poley in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:07:31 -0400, marathon <M@linux.ca> wrote:
I'll quote from one particular HTML guru from the Macromedia Dreamweaver
site:

"Never put layers in tables. Netscape 4x, and Macintosh browsers
will not properly render layers in tables.

Are you talking about DIVs or LAYERs? LAYER is a Netscape 3/4
proprietary construct and forms no part of the HTML specification. It is
entirely possible that layers inside tables give problems, but that is
of no importance to anyone nowadays.


No, some HTML Visual Editors refer to divs as "layers".
--
ATTENTION
This room is fullfilled mit special electronische equippment.
Fingergrabbing and pressing the cnoeppkes from the computers is
allowed for die experts only! So all the "lefthanders" stay away
and do not disturben the brainstorming von here working
intelligencies. Otherwise you will be out thrown and kicked
anderswhere! Also: please keep still and only watchen
astaunished the blinkenlights.
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:29:50 -0400, Brian in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
marathon wrote:
marathon wrote:

As soon as one put's a div in table, then don't be surprised if
one has problems. <shrug>


I'm more of a programmer than a designer. If HTML is not your forte, then, and with all due respect, you shouldn't
be making claims about how HTML works in browsers.
Oh OK.
However I do distinctly remember the more esteemed members of the
Dreamweaver Design community Although a few CIWAH regulars use Dreamweaver, citing the Dreamweaver
Design community is not going to win you points here. For one thing,
Dreamweaver is not a browser.
That's like saying good programmers don't use IDEs, simply a misdiretion
and an invalid point.
saying that Divs into tables was problematic. Unless you can present a test case where a <div> placed inside a <td>
causes some special problems, this claim is baseless.
My friend, I presented you with a plethora of examples.
Tables into browsers apparently are better supported across most
browser versions. Not sure what you meant here. Perhaps "Tables into <td> elements"?
No, tables into layers...
I'll quote from one particular HTML guru from the Macromedia
Dreamweaver site:

"Never put layers in tables. Netscape 4x, and Macintosh browsers will
not properly render layers in tables.

<layer> != <div>
Actually layers _ARE EQUAL_ to divs in the HTML sense.
So this "HTML guru" appears to be talking about a Netscape proprietary
element that is unrelated to the <div> element. For some reason, the two
get confused by those unfamiliar with HTML, as you have done.


What that HTML guru is saying (as are many others), is that inserting
divs into tables isn't supported cross browser.

--
ATTENTION
This room is fullfilled mit special electronische equippment.
Fingergrabbing and pressing the cnoeppkes from the computers is
allowed for die experts only! So all the "lefthanders" stay away
and do not disturben the brainstorming von here working
intelligencies. Otherwise you will be out thrown and kicked
anderswhere! Also: please keep still and only watchen
astaunished the blinkenlights.
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:36:11 -0400, marathon <M@linux.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:55:26 +0200, Stephen Poley in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:07:31 -0400, marathon <M@linux.ca> wrote:

I'll quote from one particular HTML guru from the Macromedia Dreamweaver
site:

"Never put layers in tables. Netscape 4x, and Macintosh browsers
will not properly render layers in tables.

Are you talking about DIVs or LAYERs? LAYER is a Netscape 3/4
proprietary construct and forms no part of the HTML specification. It is
entirely possible that layers inside tables give problems, but that is
of no importance to anyone nowadays.


No, some HTML Visual Editors refer to divs as "layers".

The first page you quoted, http://www.thepattysite.com/layer_laws.cfm,
says in its very first paragraph that a layer is an
*absolutely-positioned* div. It seems to me that you are out of your
depth and should do a bit more reading and experimentation before you
come out with sweeping statements such as "you shouldn't put divs into
tables".

Incidentally that page is pretty unimpressive, as it mixes up tags with
elements, makes confusing use of the term 'inline' (in CSS terms inline
elements cannot be absolutely positioned), and generally gives the
impression that the author hasn't read the HTML and CSS specs recently,
if at all.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
Stephen Poley <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote:
in CSS terms inline elements cannot be absolutely positioned


Incorrect.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 09:10:59 +0100, Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Stephen Poley <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote:
in CSS terms inline elements cannot be absolutely positioned


Incorrect.


Hmm - I should have just said that the page used "inline" to mean
something different to what CSS means.

Having said that, the CSS spec states "An absolutely positioned box
establishes a new containing block ... " so I think I'm right in saying
that once you've absolutely positioned something it is no longer inline.
However it wasn't important to the actual point at issue.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
Stephen Poley <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Having said that, the CSS spec states "An absolutely positioned box
establishes a new containing block ... " so I think I'm right in saying
that once you've absolutely positioned something it is no longer inline.


It is, just wrapped in a anonymous containing block.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Having said that, the CSS spec states "An absolutely positioned box
establishes a new containing block ... " so I think I'm right in saying
that once you've absolutely positioned something it is no longer inline.


It is, just wrapped in a anonymous containing block.


Incorrect, sorry, brainfart.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
marathon <M@linux.ca> writes:
I'll quote from one particular HTML guru from the Macromedia Dreamweaver
site:

"Never put layers in tables. Netscape 4x, and Macintosh browsers
<div> !== absolutely positioned <div>

There are plenty of uses for <div>s that don't involve absolute
positioning. In fact, I can't immediately think of a good reason to
put an _absolutely positioned_ <div> inside a table [1].

[1] Well, not for data tables, and layout tables shouldn't be used
anyway.
will not properly render layers in tables. If you are having
positioning problems with layers but only in certain browsers, this
is the first thing to look for. The solution would be to move the
layer(s)'s code out of the table, and re-insert it immediately above
the end <body> tag (that's the beauty of an absolutely positioned
page element - its position on the page is not dependent on its
position in the code)."


That's *not* necessarily a solution. Firstly if there's an element
with position: relative; between the <body> and the original position,
it'll move where it ends up.

Secondly, the content might not make sense if moved elsewhere in the
document - consider linearisation for CSS-disabled/unsupported
browsers and for search engines [2].

[2] Strangely, CSS linearisation is WAI-A, layout table linearisation
is WAI-AA. I have no idea why.

--
Chris
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
marathon wrote:
Brian wrote:
marathon wrote:

> As soon as one put's a div in table, then don't be surprised
> if one has problems. <shrug>
Unless you can present a test case where a <div> placed inside a
<td> causes some special problems, this claim is baseless.


My friend, I presented you with a plethora of examples.


(a) You're not my friend. (b) All the examples in the world don't mean
squat without a test case.
<layer> != <div>


Actually layers _ARE EQUAL_ to divs in the HTML sense.


Now we know you are as stubborn as you are clueless. There is no <layer>
in any html version.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 09:16:28 +0200, Stephen Poley in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:36:11 -0400, marathon <M@linux.ca> wrote:
No, some HTML Visual Editors refer to divs as "layers".


The first page you quoted, http://www.thepattysite.com/layer_laws.cfm,
says in its very first paragraph that a layer is an
*absolutely-positioned* div. It seems to me that you are out of your
depth and should do a bit more reading and experimentation before you
come out with sweeping statements such as "you shouldn't put divs into
tables".
Forget about the definition of what a "layer" is (It's blinding you). It
is a div for purposes of this discussion. You're displaying the typical
argumentative behaviour one does, when they have little substance to
back up an argument.

It's not just my opinion. If you check out the Google reference URL I
gave, you'll find many others, whom are probably just as knowledgeable
as you in regards to HTML, who agree that putting divs into tables is a
'bad thing to do'.

Instead of making personal attacks as to one's proficiency in any
particular skillset, I'd examine the issue at hand, with an open mind.

Can all these other experts be so wrong, and a few of you here so right?
If you feel you're right, I'll invite you take your argument up with the
alumni of the Dreamweaver design group, many of whom have been doing
this professionally for years. I'm sure you'll quickly find you're at
least among equals, if not, perhaps people just a little better than what
your inflated ego's inner voice seems to say to you.
Incidentally that page is pretty unimpressive, as it mixes up tags with
elements, makes confusing use of the term 'inline' (in CSS terms inline
elements cannot be absolutely positioned), and generally gives the
impression that the author hasn't read the HTML and CSS specs recently,
if at all.


Well like art, beauty is quite subjective. Such a frail attempt to
discredit, doesn't make your argument any more right.

I'll leave you to argue with yourself, and have the last word.

--
ATTENTION
This room is fullfilled mit special electronische equippment.
Fingergrabbing and pressing the cnoeppkes from the computers is
allowed for die experts only! So all the "lefthanders" stay away
and do not disturben the brainstorming von here working
intelligencies. Otherwise you will be out thrown and kicked
anderswhere! Also: please keep still and only watchen
astaunished the blinkenlights.
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 09:38:59 -0400, Brian in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
marathon wrote:
Brian wrote:
My friend, I presented you with a plethora of examples.

(a) You're not my friend. (b) All the examples in the world don't mean
squat without a test case.
<smile> Ah you're so predicable, and I don't even know you...
<layer> != <div>


Actually layers _ARE EQUAL_ to divs in the HTML sense.


<strawman alert>
Now we know you are as stubborn as you are clueless. There is no <layer>
in any html version.


</strawman alert>

I never said there was. What I inferred was that Layers are Divs. If
one is in Dreamweaver adding a layer, then one is putting in a div
in terms of what HTML refers to as a div.

If one were to look at the source markup, then one would see a 'div'
element.

--
ATTENTION
This room is fullfilled mit special electronische equippment.
Fingergrabbing and pressing the cnoeppkes from the computers is
allowed for die experts only! So all the "lefthanders" stay away
and do not disturben the brainstorming von here working
intelligencies. Otherwise you will be out thrown and kicked
anderswhere! Also: please keep still and only watchen
astaunished the blinkenlights.
Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
marathon <M@linux.ca> writes:
Forget about the definition of what a "layer" is (It's blinding you). It
is a div for purposes of this discussion. You're displaying the typical
All absolutely positioned divs (layers) are divs, but not all divs are
layers. Non-absolutely-positioned divs can be placed inside table
cells without problem.
It's not just my opinion. If you check out the Google reference URL I
gave, you'll find many others, whom are probably just as knowledgeable
as you in regards to HTML, who agree that putting divs into tables is a
'bad thing to do'.


<div>s, or absolutely-positioned (layer) <div>s?

The former is fine, the latter is risky.

--
Chris
Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a

While watching from the peanut gallery, I noticed that
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004, marathon wrote (addressing Stephen Poley):
Forget about the definition of what a "layer" is (It's blinding you).
"Blinding" in the sense that the group is reading what you actually
wrote, when you really wanted them to read something else...
It is a div for purposes of this discussion.
The point at issue is CSS positioning. The div is a mere bystander in
that. As far as HTML is concerned, applying positioning to a
paragraph, a blockquote, etc. would be much the same as applying it to
a div.
You're displaying the typical argumentative behaviour one does, when
they have little substance to back up an argument.
Pot, meet kettle.
It's not just my opinion. If you check out the Google reference URL I
gave, you'll find many others, whom are probably just as knowledgeable
as you in regards to HTML, who agree that putting divs into tables is a
'bad thing to do'.
Translation: you have read it somewhere, you didn't understand the
context, and now you're happily regurgitating it without comprehending
that it's out of context. And flaming anyone who dares to try to set
the story straight.
I'd examine the issue at hand, with an open mind.


Yup, I've done that. I'd recommend that you try it, too.

bye
Jul 20 '05 #24

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.