By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
432,474 Members | 939 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 432,474 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Tables: periodic, elemental, operatic, HTML4, CSS2 (with tabular data, not "layout")

P: n/a
I heard a rumour that Opera succeeded where none have before, and
implemented the tables described in HTML4 and CSS2. So I thought I'd
try it out with the well known Periodic Table.

http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css..._periodic.html
[Do not view in MSIE, you've been warned.]

CSS:
Notice in the TRs with the lanthanides and actinides, the empty TDs at
the end taking the background colour of the TR? I say they shouldn't
do this. I say: table {empty-cells: hide;} - means that empty area
should be transparent and show the background texture. Mozilla agrees
with me. Opera (7.23) is showing the orange and lavenderblush
background colours even on empty cells. Can someone tell me if this is
fixed in Opera 7.5?

The bright pink cell has a pure CSS popup that only Opera implements
as I expect. Mozilla fails to inherit the background colour. Which is
correct?

Chemistry:
The fellow over at web elements:
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/index.html
- calls them "lanthanoids" and "actinoids", everyone else has
"lanthanides" and "actinides", I always thought they were "rare
earths" and "transuranics"?

Which order should the data in each element's cell come in? Should the
atomic number be above or below the symbol?

Many more questions where these came from...
--
(Anyone who tries validating my CSS, talk to Christoph Paeper.)
Karl Smith.
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
20 Replies


P: n/a
Karl Smith wrote:
I heard a rumour that Opera succeeded where none have before, and
implemented the tables described in HTML4 and CSS2. So I thought I'd
try it out with the well known Periodic Table.

http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css..._periodic.html
[Do not view in MSIE, you've been warned.]

CSS:
Notice in the TRs with the lanthanides and actinides, the empty TDs at
the end taking the background colour of the TR? I say they shouldn't
do this. I say: table {empty-cells: hide;} - means that empty area
should be transparent and show the background texture.


The spec <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/tables.html#propdef-empty-cells>
doesn't even mention what should happen to the background, it only deals
with the cell border. So I guess browsers can do as they see fit.
Matthias

Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a

"Karl Smith" <go************@kjsmith.com> wrote in message
news:3d************************@posting.google.com ...
I heard a rumour that Opera succeeded where none have before, and
implemented the tables described in HTML4 and CSS2. So I thought I'd
try it out with the well known Periodic Table.

http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css..._periodic.html
[Do not view in MSIE, you've been warned.]


When I move the cursor from left to right, the symbols for the elements
disappear and generally don't reappear. When I move from top to bottom, the
symbols reappear as I leave on the downward pass, but on the upward pass
only the top half of the symbol reappears. What does it all mean??? :-)

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c1*************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Karl Smith" <go************@kjsmith.com> wrote in message
news:3d************************@posting.google.com ...
I heard a rumour that Opera succeeded where none have before, and
implemented the tables described in HTML4 and CSS2. So I thought I'd
try it out with the well known Periodic Table.

http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css..._periodic.html
[Do not view in MSIE, you've been warned.]

When I move the cursor from left to right, the symbols for the elements
disappear and generally don't reappear. When I move from top to bottom,

the symbols reappear as I leave on the downward pass, but on the upward pass
only the top half of the symbol reappears. What does it all mean??? :-)


That is, it's in Opera 7.21 that this happens.

Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
On 20 Feb 2004 07:48:12 -0800, go************@kjsmith.com (Karl Smith) wrote:
http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css..._periodic.html
[Do not view in MSIE, you've been warned.]


Yeah, crashes, KABOOM. I know some people I'll send it to.

Thanks,

MasonC
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Matthias Gutfeldt <sa************@gmx.net> wrote:
Karl Smith wrote:
I heard a rumour that Opera succeeded where none have before, and
implemented the tables described in HTML4 and CSS2. So I thought I'd
try it out with the well known Periodic Table.

http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css..._periodic.html

CSS:
Notice in the TRs with the lanthanides and actinides, the empty TDs at
the end taking the background colour of the TR? I say they shouldn't
do this. I say: table {empty-cells: hide;} - means that empty area
should be transparent and show the background texture.


The spec <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/tables.html#propdef-empty-cells>
doesn't even mention what should happen to the background, it only deals
with the cell border. So I guess browsers can do as they see fit.


In CSS2.1, which while I was away went from "working draft" to
"candidate recommendation" status, it does specifically mention
backgrounds too. (Can't believe I fell into that trap.) It seems a
simple matter of common sense, what is the use of making the borders
disappear and leaving blotches of colour?

But my question remains, what does the latest beta from Opera do? (I
notice the rendering in Opera 7.23 is exactly the same as MSIE6.)

--
Karl Smith.
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Mason A. Clark <ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote:
On 20 Feb 2004 07:48:12 -0800, Karl Smith wrote:
http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css..._periodic.html
[Do not view in MSIE, you've been warned.]


Yeah, crashes, KABOOM. I know some people I'll send it to.


Newer, harmless, version at that URL now. Was just following up on
earlier post where I said I'd write something that would only work in
Opera. ;-)
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
In article Karl Smith wrote:
Matthias Gutfeldt <sa************@gmx.net> wrote:
Karl Smith wrote:
I heard a rumour that Opera succeeded where none have before, and
implemented the tables described in HTML4 and CSS2. So I thought I'd
try it out with the well known Periodic Table.

http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css..._periodic.html

CSS:
Notice in the TRs with the lanthanides and actinides, the empty TDs at
the end taking the background colour of the TR? I say they shouldn't
do this. I say: table {empty-cells: hide;} - means that empty area
should be transparent and show the background texture.


The spec <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/tables.html#propdef-empty-cells>
doesn't even mention what should happen to the background, it only deals
with the cell border. So I guess browsers can do as they see fit.


In CSS2.1, which while I was away went from "working draft" to
"candidate recommendation" status, it does specifically mention
backgrounds too. (Can't believe I fell into that trap.) It seems a
simple matter of common sense, what is the use of making the borders
disappear and leaving blotches of colour?

But my question remains, what does the latest beta from Opera do? (I
notice the rendering in Opera 7.23 is exactly the same as MSIE6.)


It still renders background.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
It seems "Karl Smith" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
I heard a rumour that Opera succeeded where none have before, and
implemented the tables described in HTML4 and CSS2. So I thought I'd
try it out with the well known Periodic Table.

http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css..._periodic.html
[Do not view in MSIE, you've been warned.]
:-) It looks good in Moz 1.4.

With one exception: the three-digit atomic numbers are slightly too
wide for the cells.

But _something_ goes wrong after display, and Mozilla locks up. I'm
in Win98; I switched to the Gravity program to reread your message,
then tried to switch back to Moz and it would not display. I had to
use Task Mangler to kill it.
The fellow over at web elements:
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/index.html
- calls them "lanthanoids" and "actinoids", everyone else has
"lanthanides" and "actinides", I always thought they were "rare
earths" and "transuranics"?


Perhaps this is a matter of different national educational systems,
or different times of attending school?

I studied chemistry up through 1971. To us the first series was
formally "lanthanides" or sometimes informally "rare earths"; the
second was "actinides".

"Transuranics" isn't logical, since the actinides include Uranium
itself and three elements with lower Z.

I've never seen the -oids forms you mention.

--
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/
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
I studied chemistry up through 1971. To us the first series was
formally "lanthanides" or sometimes informally "rare earths"; the
second was "actinides".

I've never seen the -oids forms you mention.


.... recommended by IUPAC. "Lanthanide" would the designation of
an anion like chloride, hydride, sulfide, etc.
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
It seems "Andreas Prilop" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
I studied chemistry up through 1971. To us the first series was
formally "lanthanides" or sometimes informally "rare earths"; the
second was "actinides".

I've never seen the -oids forms you mention.


... recommended by IUPAC. "Lanthanide" would the designation of
an anion like chloride, hydride, sulfide, etc.


Ah, those pesky standardizers. :-)

When I took chemistry a liter wasn't exactly 1000 cc either.

What's the IPUAC recommendation for the series starting at Z=89? Not
"transuranoids", I assume?

--
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/
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
It seems "Karl Smith" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
I heard a rumour that Opera succeeded where none have before, and
implemented the tables described in HTML4 and CSS2. So I thought I'd
try it out with the well known Periodic Table.

http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css..._periodic.html
[Do not view in MSIE, you've been warned.]
:-) It looks good in Moz 1.4.

With one exception: the three-digit atomic numbers are slightly too
wide for the cells.


I only specified sans-serif for the font and 2em for the width of a
TD, with Arial a three digit number is less than 2 ems wide. Are you
using some wacky font for sans-serif?

But _something_ goes wrong after display, and Mozilla locks up. I'm
in Win98; I switched to the Gravity program to reread your message,
then tried to switch back to Moz and it would not display. I had to
use Task Mangler to kill it.
There's nothing malicious in it, it's a normal table. (I did know that
would happen with IE6.) Which version did you see, the original one
with the popup applying to every cell that was dancing all over the
place, or the "harmless" (to IE) one? Both were harmless in Moz 1.6.

"Transuranics" isn't logical, since the actinides include Uranium
itself and three elements with lower Z.

I've never seen the -oids forms you mention.


I take trans to mean "around", not "above", as in: subsonic,
trans-sonic, supersonic. Well I've decided to go with "-oids", got to
keep up with the Joneses.

Newer version:
http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css..._table_v2.html

--
Karl Smith.
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
Lauri Raittila wrote:
Karl Smith wrote:
Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
Karl Smith wrote:
> http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css..._periodic.html
>
> Notice in the TRs with the lanthanides and actinides, the empty TDs at
> the end taking the background colour of the TR? I say they shouldn't
> do this. I say: table {empty-cells: hide;} - means that empty area
> should be transparent and show the background texture.

The spec <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/tables.html#propdef-empty-cells>
doesn't even mention what should happen to the background, it only deals
with the cell border. So I guess browsers can do as they see fit.


In CSS2.1, which while I was away went from "working draft" to
"candidate recommendation" status, it does specifically mention
backgrounds too. (Can't believe I fell into that trap.) It seems a
simple matter of common sense, what is the use of making the borders
disappear and leaving blotches of colour?

But my question remains, what does the latest beta from Opera do? (I
notice the rendering in Opera 7.23 is exactly the same as MSIE6.)


It still renders background.


Well I found the "official" version:

http://www.iupac.org/reports/periodic_table/index.html

and my newer version:

http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css..._table_v2.html

- is re-arranged slightly to agee with that. It makes those full rows
with no empty cells. This neatly _hides_ the problem, but it certainly
doesn't solve it.

--
Karl Smith.
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
"Harlan Messinger" wrote:
"Karl Smith" <go************@kjsmith.com> wrote:

http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css..._periodic.html
[Do not view in MSIE, you've been warned.]
When I move the cursor from left to right, the symbols for the elements
disappear and generally don't reappear. When I move from top to bottom, the
symbols reappear as I leave on the downward pass, but on the upward pass
only the top half of the symbol reappears.


It was very rough. The CSS popup is a trivial matter that I'll fix
after I get the table right. The effect you saw was a consequence of
flipping the "display", "z-index" and "position" properties
simultaneously. Don't do that :-)

What does it all mean??? :-)


An excellent question.
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
Karl Smith wrote:
....
http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css..._table_v2.html


<which links to *elements*>
Any chance of getting the elements
tarted up and styled?
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/nph-pertab/tab/element/C

You might get some info. from the equivalent
page I ran in ciwas ..some time ago.
http://www.1point1c.org/chemistry/el...atomicnumber=6

I think you should also add a link to anywhere
but where the current link on your element page
leads, (shrugs) possibly _no_ link would be better..

just my 2c
[ which 'rounded', comes to ..0! ;-) ]

--
Andrew Thompson
* http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
* http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
* http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
It seems "Karl Smith" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
I only specified sans-serif for the font and 2em for the width of a
TD, with Arial a three digit number is less than 2 ems wide. Are you
using some wacky font for sans-serif?


Is Lucida Sans "wacky"?

--
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/
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
"Andrew Thompson" <Se********@www.invalid> wrote:
Karl Smith wrote:
...
http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/css..._table_v2.html
<which links to *elements*>


Well it shouldn't! The links are the last vestige of the table I
swiped to avoid having to type all the symbols in myself. But since it
has the symbols above the numbers, and everyone else has the other way
around, I'm going to be retyping all that anyway, it seems.
Any chance of getting the elements
tarted up and styled?
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/nph-pertab/tab/element/C
Not mine to fix, sorry.

just my 2c
[ which 'rounded', comes to ..0! ;-) ]


Odd how the rounding always seems to work in Coles' favour, ain't it?
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Stan Brown wrote:
When I took chemistry a liter wasn't exactly 1000 cc either.
But even at that time, "cc" was wrong for cubic centimetre.
<http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/rules.html>
The symbol is cm³ in ISO-8859-1 and cm3 in ASCII (ISO 2955).
What's the IPUAC recommendation for the series starting at Z=89? Not
"transuranoids", I assume?


Actinoids
<http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2004/2601/2_holden.html>

Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
It seems "Andreas Prilop" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Stan Brown wrote:
When I took chemistry a liter wasn't exactly 1000 cc either.


But even at that time, "cc" was wrong for cubic centimetre.
<http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/rules.html>


I think probably you mean
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/checklist.html

But I'm curious: that gives today's rule but (unless I misread) does
not say when it became effective. Was "cc" deprecated even in the
early 1960s?

--
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/
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Stan Brown wrote:
<http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/rules.html>
I think probably you mean
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/checklist.html


I mean what I write. The page I cited has _two_ links, another
to <http://physics.nist.gov/Document/checklist.pdf>
But I'm curious: that gives today's rule but (unless I misread) does
not say when it became effective. Was "cc" deprecated even in the
early 1960s?


I'm afraid this is way OT here and I suggest <news:misc.metric-system>
for such questions.

Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
It seems "Andreas Prilop" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Stan Brown wrote:
But I'm curious: that gives today's rule but (unless I misread) does
not say when it became effective. Was "cc" deprecated even in the
early 1960s?


I'm afraid this is way OT here and I suggest <news:misc.metric-system>
for such questions.


Then why did you bring it up?

--
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/
Jul 20 '05 #21

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.