By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,983 Members | 2,035 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,983 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Variable length scrolling <div> or <iframe>?

P: n/a
I have had great success with using <iframe> with overflow-y set to auto. I
can get a similar look with the <iframe> tag.

BUT... In all cases I need to have fixed heights. Is there a way to put
either tag inside an HTML <TD> and have the same kind of scrolling effect.

This would allow me to fill the screen and have the size of the scrolling
box change on resize.

Thanks in advance.

Jim
Nov 22 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
44 Replies


P: n/a
<table height="100%" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr>
<td>
<div style="width: 100%; height: 100%; overflow: auto; border:
1px solid red">
A div with text in it that will stat at 100% of the holding block element
size and also allow scrolling for off screen content.
A div with text in it that will stat at 100% of the holding block element
size and also allow scrolling for off screen content.
A div with text in it that will stat at 100% of the holding block element
size and also allow scrolling for off screen content.
A div with text in it that will stat at 100% of the holding block element
size and also allow scrolling for off screen content. </div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>

Border added for effect.

Chris.

"Jim M" <an********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OH**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I have had great success with using <iframe> with overflow-y set to auto. I
can get a similar look with the <iframe> tag.

BUT... In all cases I need to have fixed heights. Is there a way to put
either tag inside an HTML <TD> and have the same kind of scrolling effect.

This would allow me to fill the screen and have the size of the scrolling
box change on resize.

Thanks in advance.

Jim

Nov 22 '05 #2

P: n/a
"Jim M" <an********@discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb
I have had great success with using <iframe> with overflow-y set to
auto. I can get a similar look with the <iframe> tag.

BUT... In all cases I need to have fixed heights. Is there a way to
put either tag inside an HTML <TD> and have the same kind of
scrolling effect.

This would allow me to fill the screen and have the size of the
scrolling box change on resize.


I don't know what you mean. I think it is not a VB.NET language related
question.
--
Armin

http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

Nov 22 '05 #3

P: n/a
"Chris Barber" <ch***@blue-canoe.co.uk.NOSPAM> wrote in
news:#X**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
<table height="100%" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr>
<td>
<div style="width: 100%; height: 100%; overflow: auto;
border:
1px solid red">
A div with text in it that will stat at 100% of the holding block
element size and also allow scrolling for off screen content.
A div with text in it that will stat at 100% of the holding block
element size and also allow scrolling for off screen content.
A div with text in it that will stat at 100% of the holding block
element size and also allow scrolling for off screen content.
A div with text in it that will stat at 100% of the holding block
element size and also allow scrolling for off screen content.
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>

Border added for effect.


This only works in IE, but not in Mozilla browsers. (in mozilla the
scrollbar never appears, because the element with height:100% seems to
grow automatically.)

Anyone knows how to do this in a uniform way?

Allie

Nov 22 '05 #4

P: n/a
Brilliant :(

I am beginning to despair with HTML and browser specific implementations.

Chris.

"Allard" <sp**@atarde.com.br> wrote in message
news:Xn*******************************@207.46.248. 16...
"Chris Barber" <ch***@blue-canoe.co.uk.NOSPAM> wrote in
news:#X**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:

<snipped/>

This only works in IE, but not in Mozilla browsers. (in mozilla the
scrollbar never appears, because the element with height:100% seems to
grow automatically.)

Anyone knows how to do this in a uniform way?

Allie
Nov 22 '05 #5

P: n/a
"Chris Barber" wrote:

Brilliant :(

I am beginning to despair with HTML and browser specific
implementations.


First of all, it's a style issue, not an HTML one**. And this seems worthy
of mention:

"CSS1 core: UAs may ignore the 'height' property (i.e.,
treat it as 'auto') if the element is not a replaced
element."
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1#height

Since a DIV is not a replaced element, I don't see how you can reasonably
expect uniformity.

And that's just as well. Consider what the W3C says about style sheets:

"By attaching style sheets to structured documents on the
Web (e.g. HTML), authors and readers can influence the
presentation of documents without sacrificing device-
independence or adding new HTML tags."
http://www.w3.org/Style/

To me, the key word in that passage is INFLUENCE. I wouldn't get too worked
up about standards-compliant discrepancies between implementations. This is
a technology that should be *embraced* for its flexibility, not cursed.
**Even if you want to consider the HTML HEIGHT attribute on your table, you
have a problem. For one thing, the TABLE element has none. And for cells,
it's deprecated:
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40...tml#edef-TABLE
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40...adef-height-TH

--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.

Nov 22 '05 #6

P: n/a
"Dave Anderson" <GT**********@spammotel.com> wrote in
news:u5*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl:
"Chris Barber" wrote:

Brilliant :(

I am beginning to despair with HTML and browser specific
implementations.
First of all, it's a style issue, not an HTML one**. And this seems
worthy of mention:

"CSS1 core: UAs may ignore the 'height' property (i.e.,
treat it as 'auto') if the element is not a replaced
element."
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1#height

Since a DIV is not a replaced element, I don't see how you can
reasonably expect uniformity.

And that's just as well. Consider what the W3C says about style
sheets:

"By attaching style sheets to structured documents on the
Web (e.g. HTML), authors and readers can influence the
presentation of documents without sacrificing device-
independence or adding new HTML tags."
http://www.w3.org/Style/

To me, the key word in that passage is INFLUENCE. I wouldn't get too
worked up about standards-compliant discrepancies between
implementations. This is a technology that should be *embraced* for
its flexibility, not cursed.
**Even if you want to consider the HTML HEIGHT attribute on your
table, you have a problem. For one thing, the TABLE element has none.
And for cells, it's deprecated:
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40...les.html#edef-

T ABLE
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40...les.html#adef- h eight-TH


That's all great, but how to do what we want then?

Nov 22 '05 #7

P: n/a
"Allard" wrote:

That's all great, but how to do what we want then?


By "do what we want", do you mean "force the browser to display exactly as
we desire"? If so, abandon that notion. You cannot reasonably expect the UA
to even support styles, as some people turn them off (for accessibility or
other reasons). Ditto for scripting.

Consider the MSDN JScript Language Reference:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en...ereference.asp

When viewed in IE, the tree can be navigated without page reloads. When
viewed in Mozilla, the tree navigation, while still possible, requires that
the whole frameset reload. In Opera, there isn't even a frameset -- you see
only the content pages, but no tree.

And although site look and navigation is different for each browser, the
core purpose of the JScript reference is still served. Isn't that the
important thing?
--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.
Nov 22 '05 #8

P: n/a
"Dave Anderson" <GT**********@spammotel.com> wrote in
news:#T**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:
"Allard" wrote:

That's all great, but how to do what we want then?
By "do what we want", do you mean "force the browser to display
exactly as we desire"? If so, abandon that notion. You cannot
reasonably expect the UA to even support styles, as some people turn
them off (for accessibility or other reasons). Ditto for scripting.

Consider the MSDN JScript Language Reference:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-

us/script56/html/js56jslrfjscriptl anguagereference.asp

When viewed in IE, the tree can be navigated without page reloads.
When viewed in Mozilla, the tree navigation, while still possible,
requires that the whole frameset reload. In Opera, there isn't even a
frameset -- you see only the content pages, but no tree.

And although site look and navigation is different for each browser,
the core purpose of the JScript reference is still served. Isn't that
the important thing?


Correct, that is a nice example of browser specific implementations. For
example, in Mozilla the handling (and code) is different than for a IE
browser. I am sure they spent a lot of effort to make this in a uniform
way.

But the problem here is that we want to display something in the browser
that does not seem to be possible: if you have a table with two rows,
the first row is of fixed height, the second row should fill up the rest
of the screen. The content displayed in the second row should
automatically show scrollbars to be able to display all. The first row
should never scroll off screen. This in contrast of a big part of the
internet, where navigation buttons are scrolled off screen, which is
terribly ugly and user unfriendly. You must first scroll to navigate to
another page!?!?

Using the same approach as the example you gave, we could make a
different implementation for Mozilla browsers (using a frameset or so),
but of course this is not very easy to maintain.

Instead, how to display something like this on both browsers using HTML
and CSS?

The funny thing is that although IE might be inconsistent with the
specifications, it looks like it's the only browser that is capable of
showing user interfaces like the example earlier in this thread.

Appreciate your help,
Allie
Nov 22 '05 #9

P: n/a
"Allard" wrote:

Using the same approach as the example you gave, we could
make a different implementation for Mozilla browsers (using
a frameset or so), but of course this is not very easy to
maintain.
I intentionally chose an example that would highlight this point. I rigidly
oppose browser detection and the associated parallel development. But
choosing to write one version is necessarily a compromise. If I can't make
the application look and feel *exactly* the way I want to, then so be it.
Content is king, not design.

Instead, how to display something like this on both browsers
using HTML and CSS?
If you are so bound to the "full-window" model that you cannot budge, you
can always accomplish it with frames:

<FRAMESET ROWS="(value of choice),*">

The funny thing is that although IE might be inconsistent with
the specifications, it looks like it's the only browser that
is capable of showing user interfaces like the example earlier
in this thread.


It's the only browser you TESTED that does what you want within your a
priori established boundaries (no frames, for example).

--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.
Nov 22 '05 #10

P: n/a
so....

according to the CSS specs, there is no general solution to do it with a
single HTML page? (if so, that would make me highly unsatisfied...)

A fullscreen solution indeed has my (and many ordinary users)
preference. In fact, only Internet websites have this browsing dilemma,
normal applications never have scrolling full screens. (I believe)

A frameset is possible, but would use multiple html pages, which is a
more difficult environment for scripts. What if I have a clientside
class that generated the HTML code, then I would need to put this code
in two frames, AND set the stylesheets in each frame.

I like your statement "content is kind, not design"... but in my opinion
it's not the way it should be... You should as a developer always be
able to show the content in a way you want, by simply defining the view.
If the view is the second row in a table like I described, then so be
it. That it will not be displayed 100% exactly the way you defined it on
every browser, ok, I can live with that, but at least a little bit close
would already be great...

:)

Allie
Nov 22 '05 #11

P: n/a
Thanks for all the details, looks like I can try it tonight.

"Chris Barber" <ch***@blue-canoe.co.uk.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
<table height="100%" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr>
<td>
<div style="width: 100%; height: 100%; overflow: auto; border:
1px solid red">
A div with text in it that will stat at 100% of the holding block element
size and also allow scrolling for off screen content.
A div with text in it that will stat at 100% of the holding block element
size and also allow scrolling for off screen content.
A div with text in it that will stat at 100% of the holding block element
size and also allow scrolling for off screen content.
A div with text in it that will stat at 100% of the holding block element
size and also allow scrolling for off screen content. </div> </td>
</tr>
</table>

Border added for effect.

Chris.

"Jim M" <an********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OH**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I have had great success with using <iframe> with overflow-y set to auto. I can get a similar look with the <iframe> tag.

BUT... In all cases I need to have fixed heights. Is there a way to put
either tag inside an HTML <TD> and have the same kind of scrolling effect.

This would allow me to fill the screen and have the size of the scrolling
box change on resize.

Thanks in advance.

Jim

Nov 22 '05 #12

P: n/a
I did want to add a few header title rows to your example. Thanks for the
example.

Is it correct to assume that there is no way to have 100px of header, and
then a scrolling <div> tag taking up "100% - 100px". It think this is the
root of my original question.

Or is there some way to set the <div> tag to be height = 100% or the size of
the <TD> container?

I am assuming there is no way based on ...

But the problem here is that we want to display something in the browser
that does not seem to be possible: if you have a table with two rows,
the first row is of fixed height, the second row should fill up the rest
of the screen. The content displayed in the second row should
automatically show scrollbars to be able to display all. The first row
should never scroll off screen. This in contrast of a big part of the
internet, where navigation buttons are scrolled off screen, which is
terribly ugly and user unfriendly. You must first scroll to navigate to
another page!?!?



"Allard" <sp**@atarde.com.br> wrote in message
news:Xn*******************************@207.46.248. 16...
"Dave Anderson" <GT**********@spammotel.com> wrote in
news:#T**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:
"Allard" wrote:

That's all great, but how to do what we want then?


By "do what we want", do you mean "force the browser to display
exactly as we desire"? If so, abandon that notion. You cannot
reasonably expect the UA to even support styles, as some people turn
them off (for accessibility or other reasons). Ditto for scripting.

Consider the MSDN JScript Language Reference:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-

us/script56/html/js56jslrfjscriptl
anguagereference.asp

When viewed in IE, the tree can be navigated without page reloads.
When viewed in Mozilla, the tree navigation, while still possible,
requires that the whole frameset reload. In Opera, there isn't even a
frameset -- you see only the content pages, but no tree.

And although site look and navigation is different for each browser,
the core purpose of the JScript reference is still served. Isn't that
the important thing?


Correct, that is a nice example of browser specific implementations. For
example, in Mozilla the handling (and code) is different than for a IE
browser. I am sure they spent a lot of effort to make this in a uniform
way.

But the problem here is that we want to display something in the browser
that does not seem to be possible: if you have a table with two rows,
the first row is of fixed height, the second row should fill up the rest
of the screen. The content displayed in the second row should
automatically show scrollbars to be able to display all. The first row
should never scroll off screen. This in contrast of a big part of the
internet, where navigation buttons are scrolled off screen, which is
terribly ugly and user unfriendly. You must first scroll to navigate to
another page!?!?

Using the same approach as the example you gave, we could make a
different implementation for Mozilla browsers (using a frameset or so),
but of course this is not very easy to maintain.

Instead, how to display something like this on both browsers using HTML
and CSS?

The funny thing is that although IE might be inconsistent with the
specifications, it looks like it's the only browser that is capable of
showing user interfaces like the example earlier in this thread.

Appreciate your help,
Allie

Nov 22 '05 #13

P: n/a
OK,

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert web designer / developer
but I have produced web 'applications' for intranet and internet where the
vagaries of different browser (whether or not they are HTML / CSS compliant)
becomes a minefield that can produce very strange and worrying effects. I
had
at least one instance on a MAC where the page returned as a complete blank
with full source still visible (eg. View Source).

I don't even know what a 'replaced' element is and certainly I don't have
the time, energy, or inclination to go and check every usage on an HTML
element, attribute or CSS application whether it be a stylesheet or style
attribute.

Now, please don;t get me wrong, I'm not ranting, nor am I flaming your
response. I'm merely trying to show the level of frustration that
accompanies any form of web based development no matter how experienced one
might be. I'd probably put myself across as an 'Advanced' web developer
given that I've successfully done DHTML, XSLT,. XML, Javascript, and fairly
complex layouts with attendant CSS. However, it still pi**es me off when my
best efforts turn out to be garbage on anything other than IE 5.5+ or
Mozilla (I *like* Mozilla a lot). Certainly trying to get anything even
remotely complex or interactive to work
with Netscape or the Mac (Safari) is almost impossible.

Regards,

Chris.

"Dave Anderson" <GT**********@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:u5*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
"Chris Barber" wrote:

Brilliant :(

I am beginning to despair with HTML and browser specific
implementations.


First of all, it's a style issue, not an HTML one**. And this seems worthy
of mention:

"CSS1 core: UAs may ignore the 'height' property (i.e.,
treat it as 'auto') if the element is not a replaced
element."
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1#height

Since a DIV is not a replaced element, I don't see how you can reasonably
expect uniformity.

And that's just as well. Consider what the W3C says about style sheets:

"By attaching style sheets to structured documents on the
Web (e.g. HTML), authors and readers can influence the
presentation of documents without sacrificing device-
independence or adding new HTML tags."
http://www.w3.org/Style/

To me, the key word in that passage is INFLUENCE. I wouldn't get too worked
up about standards-compliant discrepancies between implementations. This is
a technology that should be *embraced* for its flexibility, not cursed.
**Even if you want to consider the HTML HEIGHT attribute on your table, you
have a problem. For one thing, the TABLE element has none. And for cells,
it's deprecated:
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40...tml#edef-TABLE
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40...adef-height-TH

--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.

Nov 22 '05 #14

P: n/a
I can seen nothing else than: " I totally agree..."

I am still curious though to know what the h*ll a replaced element is ....
:)

Allie
Nov 22 '05 #15

P: n/a
Ahh ...

<quote>
Replaced element
An element for which the CSS formatter knows only the intrinsic dimensions.
In HTML, IMG, INPUT, TEXTAREA, SELECT, and OBJECT elements can be examples
of replaced elements. For example, the content of the IMG element is often
replaced by the image that the "src" attribute designates. CSS does not
define how the intrinsic dimensions are found.
</quote>

Found that in:

http://tinyurl.com/23snc

Chris.

"Allard" <sp**@atarde.com.br> wrote in message
news:Xn*******************************@207.46.248. 16...
I can seen nothing else than: " I totally agree..."

I am still curious though to know what the h*ll a replaced element is ....
:)

Allie
Nov 22 '05 #16

P: n/a
"Chris Barber" wrote:

I had at least one instance on a MAC where the page
returned as a complete blank with full source still
visible (eg. View Source).
My experience with Mac browsers has been somewhat limited for the last three
years, though I used one quite extensively until 2001. And on the occasions
when the above occurred, I was inevitably able to trace the problem to tags
that were opened but never closed (especially TABLE tags). But that is not
to say you never had this happen with valid HTML. I obviously could not know
that.

...it still pi**es me off when my best efforts turn out
to be garbage on anything other than IE 5.5+ or Mozilla
(I *like* Mozilla a lot).
But it isn't that difficult to identify subsets of HTML/DOM/CSS that are
implemented fairly uniformly. And once you identify the land mines, your
future development efforts are greatly simplified (if somewhat limited in
flexibility).

If you have the luxury of setting the bar, things are also greatly
simplified. This is obviously harder to do for public sites, but on our
intrant, for example, we are able to be picky. We code to HTML4, DOM1 (and
some of 2), CSS1 (and some of 2), and full ECMA-262v3 as minima. This
approach does not especially limit our developers OR our users.

Our public web site is another matter. For that, I share your pain, though
my philosophic approach is somewhat minimalist**. I would not try to fill
the window, for example, because I don't believe it is important.

Just don't get me started on vendor-supplied applications that work in only
specific browsers with specific JVMs. Some of our departments are big enough
and isolated enough to think they can purchase web applications without
consulting the development groups or without causing conflicts. And while
this approach is fine for many users, it can force very specific software
versions (browser or plug-in) onto our Citrix systems, which almost always
leads to problems with other vendor-supplied web applications.

Certainly trying to get
anything even remotely complex or interactive to work
with Netscape or the Mac (Safari) is almost impossible.

That depends on your bias toward DHTML and against round-trips.
**Simple HTML, simple CSS. I lean toward round-trips and away from DHTML.
Though I am capable of nuanced and attractive design, I have access to a
marketing team with highly skilled artists -- and they are far more willing
than I to "uglify" the source code by using such tools as Dreamweaver. I try
not to think about what they do to the *valid* HTML I hand them.

--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.
Nov 22 '05 #17

P: n/a
"Dave Anderson" <GT**********@spammotel.com> wrote in
news:um**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
Our public web site is another matter. For that, I share your pain,
though my philosophic approach is somewhat minimalist**. I would not
try to fill the window, for example, because I don't believe it is
important.


I have seen too many sites where clicking on a link refreshes the whole
screen, reloading all navigation buttons/links again that were already
there. I have seen too many pages where you must scroll to the top of
the page (after reading to the bottom) to go to another page. I have
seen too many flashy screens (aspx), that refreshes a whole document,
when only a little thing changes on the screen. I have spent too much
time waiting for a page to reload, when it could have been twice as fast
because all that redundant information didn't need to be transferred
again...

This is only an attempt to make an improvement, to make better user
interfaces, and yes, I do think this is very important. Many Internet
websites simply look too primitive, and could be improved (a lot!) by
offering such a interface that fills the window.

Allie

Nov 22 '05 #18

P: n/a
"Allard" wrote:
...I share your pain, though my philosophic approach is
somewhat minimalist**. I would not try to fill the window,
for example, because I don't believe it is important.
I have seen too many sites where clicking on a link refreshes
the whole screen, reloading all navigation buttons/links again
that were already there. I have seen too many pages where you
must scroll to the top of the page (after reading to the bottom)
to go to another page. I have seen too many flashy screens
(aspx), that refreshes a whole document, when only a little
thing changes on the screen. I have spent too much time waiting
for a page to reload, when it could have been twice as fast
because all that redundant information didn't need to be
transferred again...


None of these issues represents fallout of minimalist design. What exactly
is the point here?

I note, by the way, that each of the above problems can be diminished
through the use of FRAMEs or IFRAMEs, not to mention making forms that are
"wizard-like" rather than all-inclusive.

This is only an attempt to make an improvement, to make better
user interfaces, and yes, I do think this is very important.
Many Internet websites simply look too primitive, and could be
improved (a lot!) by offering such a interface that fills the
window.


Why would filling a screen improve an interface? Would the Windows
Calculator (calc.exe) be a better application if you could maximize its
window? You are proposing to do essentially the same thing. If the
form/app/page has enough content to fill the screen, then it will. Why force
it to if it doesn't have to?
--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.
Nov 22 '05 #19

P: n/a
The purpose of the original post was for a weekly calendar, ie.. this would
take 7 <iframes>, 7 hits to the server. Next, I will go after a monthly
calendar with scrolling days... 31 <iframes>. The problem is that a large
screen is a great advantage when looking at a monthly calendar. It seems so
silly to be stuck with fixed sized days in my calendar to get scrolling.

I do not think it is unusual of late for business applications to require IE
to run in order to get functionality. In these very challenging times,
many users would rather pay less and get a good GUI and accept the
limitation of having to run in IE only. The alternative is to pay more in
development costs or get less in GUI.

Just some thoughts from another late night programmer.

"Dave Anderson" <GT**********@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:Of**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
"Allard" wrote:
...I share your pain, though my philosophic approach is
somewhat minimalist**. I would not try to fill the window,
for example, because I don't believe it is important.
I have seen too many sites where clicking on a link refreshes
the whole screen, reloading all navigation buttons/links again
that were already there. I have seen too many pages where you
must scroll to the top of the page (after reading to the bottom)
to go to another page. I have seen too many flashy screens
(aspx), that refreshes a whole document, when only a little
thing changes on the screen. I have spent too much time waiting
for a page to reload, when it could have been twice as fast
because all that redundant information didn't need to be
transferred again...


None of these issues represents fallout of minimalist design. What exactly
is the point here?

I note, by the way, that each of the above problems can be diminished
through the use of FRAMEs or IFRAMEs, not to mention making forms that are
"wizard-like" rather than all-inclusive.

This is only an attempt to make an improvement, to make better
user interfaces, and yes, I do think this is very important.
Many Internet websites simply look too primitive, and could be
improved (a lot!) by offering such a interface that fills the
window.


Why would filling a screen improve an interface? Would the Windows
Calculator (calc.exe) be a better application if you could maximize its
window? You are proposing to do essentially the same thing. If the
form/app/page has enough content to fill the screen, then it will. Why

force it to if it doesn't have to?
--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.

Nov 22 '05 #20

P: n/a
Is it safe to say that ShowModalDialog is out of the question for a cross
platform solutoin? I find this routine very effective, especially with ASPX
postbacks in the modal dialog.

Jim
"Dave Anderson" <GT**********@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:Of**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
"Allard" wrote:
...I share your pain, though my philosophic approach is
somewhat minimalist**. I would not try to fill the window,
for example, because I don't believe it is important.
I have seen too many sites where clicking on a link refreshes
the whole screen, reloading all navigation buttons/links again
that were already there. I have seen too many pages where you
must scroll to the top of the page (after reading to the bottom)
to go to another page. I have seen too many flashy screens
(aspx), that refreshes a whole document, when only a little
thing changes on the screen. I have spent too much time waiting
for a page to reload, when it could have been twice as fast
because all that redundant information didn't need to be
transferred again...


None of these issues represents fallout of minimalist design. What exactly
is the point here?

I note, by the way, that each of the above problems can be diminished
through the use of FRAMEs or IFRAMEs, not to mention making forms that are
"wizard-like" rather than all-inclusive.

This is only an attempt to make an improvement, to make better
user interfaces, and yes, I do think this is very important.
Many Internet websites simply look too primitive, and could be
improved (a lot!) by offering such a interface that fills the
window.


Why would filling a screen improve an interface? Would the Windows
Calculator (calc.exe) be a better application if you could maximize its
window? You are proposing to do essentially the same thing. If the
form/app/page has enough content to fill the screen, then it will. Why

force it to if it doesn't have to?
--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.

Nov 22 '05 #21

P: n/a
"Dave Anderson" <GT**********@spammotel.com> wrote in
news:Of**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:
Why would filling a screen improve an interface? Would the Windows
Calculator (calc.exe) be a better application if you could maximize
its window? You are proposing to do essentially the same thing. If the
form/app/page has enough content to fill the screen, then it will. Why
force it to if it doesn't have to?


A calendar is not an application that has scrollbars, because it is
small anyway. Take a look at a site, let's take an example:
http://www.w3schools.com. (one of the sites I got very irritated...)
Select any of the options (for example, learn XML), and start reading.
Every time you read to the bottom of the page, you must scroll up to go
to the next section.... Sure this could be solved easily with CSS, to
make the table of content section on the left "fixed". (the left part of
the screen is blank anyway...)

What if this "content" is too big to fit on the height of the screen?
Then it doesn't work anymore. (that's why they didn't do it, sure) Then
it would need scrollbars. How big would they be? Answer: height:100%

So this is why a full screen environment is needed, leaving the content,
or any important links fixed to the left or top of the screen, and
allowing a smaller part of the screen as the view, only this view
changes.

And yes, this would then be a IFRAME, but how do you put this IFRAME to
use the fullscreen... leaving the left side and top side off the screen
as they are.... that is the point.

It's interesting to discuss these kind of things. I am still trying to
convince you, hope I will... :)

Allie

Nov 22 '05 #22

P: n/a
"Jim M" <an********@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
news:uj**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:
Is it safe to say that ShowModalDialog is out of the question for a
cross platform solutoin? I find this routine very effective,
especially with ASPX postbacks in the modal dialog.


showModalDialog is great. Except for the title of the window that you
can fill with "the title &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;etc" but
will never lose the three little points, no matter how many &nbsp; you
put.

A drawback is that you cannot change the URL in the modalDialog, it will
open always a new window.

And it only works in IE...

Allie
Nov 22 '05 #23

P: n/a
"Allard" wrote:
If the form/app/page has enough content to fill the screen,
then it will. Why force it to if it doesn't have to?
A calendar is not an application that has scrollbars,
because it is small anyway.


I didn't exactly mention scrollbars, and I don't see how this addresses my
question. How exactly does a bunch of unused space improve an application,
much less "a lot"? I still don't understand why you need to fill the window.

...let's take an example: http://www.w3schools.com. (one of
the sites I got very irritated...) Select any of the options
(for example, learn XML), and start reading. Every time you
read to the bottom of the page, you must scroll up to go to
the next section.
This is a completely separate issue, as an excess of content already takes
care of filling the window for you. Nevertheless, we can look at this. I
followed the [Learn XML] link and skimmed through some of the articles,
pressing the [Next] button at the end of each.

I have two impressions from this. First of all, the site does not do a good
job of visually distinguishing content from promotion/advertising. I
consider this a design flaw because it could lead a viewer to believe that
the bottom of the page is logically the bottom of the content (article). But
(a) this does not represent a limitation of the technology, and is easily
remedied, and (b) CONTEXT is important here. As I reached the end of an
article, I got to the [Next] button, which did not require any scrolling to
reach. So I did not find this especially burdensome IN ACTUAL PRACTICE**.

...What if this "content" is too big to fit on the height
of the screen? Then it doesn't work anymore. (that's why
they didn't do it, sure) Then it would need scrollbars.
How big would they be? Answer: height:100%


I don't understand your objection. Yes, content that exceeds the available
screen space will require a scrollbar. But you don't have to do any work to
accomplish that, so why worry about it? Once again, I don't understand the
need to fill the screen when (a) there isn't enough content to do so, or (b)
the sufficiency of content already does it for you. I see absolutely no
practical reason to use height:100%. Aesthetic, perhaps, but not practical.

**In practice, those users who are most apt to press the [Next] button ought
to be the ones actually reading the article. If the user is paying any
attention whatsoever, that end is obvious.

--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.
Nov 22 '05 #24

P: n/a
"Jim M" wrote:

The purpose of the original post was for a weekly calendar,
ie.. this would take 7 <iframes>, 7 hits to the server.
Next, I will go after a monthly calendar with scrolling
days... 31 <iframes>. The problem is that a large screen is
a great advantage when looking at a monthly calendar. It
seems so silly to be stuck with fixed sized days in my
calendar to get scrolling.
That's a misinterpretation of my suggestion. You could certainly have
branding/navigation in the primary document (or one of the frames), and the
calendar table in the IFRAME (or other frame). Here is an example of a
frameset with a big dynamic table in the content frame:
http://tinyurl.com/32zuf

I like this example because it demonstrates how you can visually present
subsets of a large set of content that is much larger than the window. The
user can choose how much to view at a time. Such an approach seems
well-suited for a calendar.

I do not think it is unusual of late for business
applications to require IE to run in order to get
functionality.
It clearly is not unusual. I do not think it wise, however. As has been
discussed in this and other groups, a dependence on IE is fine as long as IE
is functioning as expected. But when a not-insignificant percentage of my
corporation's users lost all client-side scripting in IE last year (which we
were only able to restore with the application of Win2K SP4), those users
could not access some of our vendor-supplied web apps, which required IE and
scripting. Our in-house apps, designed to standards rather than
implementations, were 100% accessible to those users, who simply switched to
Mozilla.

And I could go on and on about loss of sessions with IE and IIS, an issue
that emerged with IE 5.01, when the decision to "open new windows in a
separate process" was taken from the user and delegated to IE on the basis
of available resources. 100% of our sessions lost during active use are IE.
http://aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2157

Note that the session problem emerged with newer versions of IE. How
comfortable does that make you feel with IE-dependence?

In these very challenging times, many users would rather
pay less and get a good GUI and accept the limitation of
having to run in IE only. The alternative is to pay more
in development costs or get less in GUI.


I would argue that the ultimate costs of single-vendor dependence are
greater in the long run. We don't spend much extra effort writing to
standards. It takes work to get in a habit, but then it's a habit. And if
the little bit of effort allows us to cheaply walk away from the perilously
costly** Internet Explorer, then it's an easy call to make.
**Users simply are not sophisticated enough to deal with all of the threats
IE exposes them to. Even one of my very experienced colleagues fell victim
to a piece of adware, thinking he was installing something from one of our
vendors, but instead being rewarded with a new pop-up ad window every 10
seconds no matter where he browsed (even our intranet). I have seen some
pretty high-powered machines grind almost to a halt because of all the
adware/spyware that users said [Yes] to. IE is not free, in my opinion.

--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.
Nov 22 '05 #25

P: n/a
I give up....

I could say something like : " so you had to scroll DOWN to be able to go
to the next page. But if during reading you had already scrolled down a
bit, and suddenly realise that you already read the page and want to open
another one, then you must first scroll either down or up to find your link
because it has scrolled offscreen"

But ... I give up anyway...
Nov 22 '05 #26

P: n/a
"Allard" wrote:

I give up....


That was never my goal. I hope you are able to embrace HTML for what it
represents (universal accessibility) rather than hate it for what it does
not represent (tyrannical control for the developer).
--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.
Nov 22 '05 #27

P: n/a
Jim M wrote:
I have had great success with using <iframe> with overflow-y set to auto. I
can get a similar look with the <iframe> tag.

BUT... In all cases I need to have fixed heights. Is there a way to put
either tag inside an HTML <TD> and have the same kind of scrolling effect.

This would allow me to fill the screen and have the size of the scrolling
box change on resize.


It was asked August of 2003 about a scrolling table where the header
stayed fixed, the td's scrolled.

It has taken me 4 days to find the page again (the original doesn't
exist that I can find). Gotta love the archives.org site :)

<URL:
http://web.archive.org/web/200306082...bleInMSIE.html
/>

Watch for URL wrapping.
Might be real real close to what you are describing as wanting and not
that hard to modify the code. The real beauty is that there is *no*
scripting involved.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Nov 22 '05 #28

P: n/a
"Randy Webb" <hi************@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Vo********************@comcast.com...
: Jim M wrote:
: > I have had great success with using <iframe> with overflow-y set to
auto. I
: > can get a similar look with the <iframe> tag.
: >
: > BUT... In all cases I need to have fixed heights. Is there a way to
put
: > either tag inside an HTML <TD> and have the same kind of scrolling
effect.
: >
: > This would allow me to fill the screen and have the size of the
scrolling
: > box change on resize.
:
: It was asked August of 2003 about a scrolling table where the header
: stayed fixed, the td's scrolled.
:
: It has taken me 4 days to find the page again (the original doesn't
: exist that I can find). Gotta love the archives.org site :)
:
: <URL:
:
http://web.archive.org/web/200306082...bleInMSIE.html

You didn't have to look that hard:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....phx.gbl#link1

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp
Nov 22 '05 #29

P: n/a
Roland Hall wrote:
"Randy Webb" <hi************@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Vo********************@comcast.com...
: Jim M wrote:
: > I have had great success with using <iframe> with overflow-y set to
auto. I
: > can get a similar look with the <iframe> tag.
: >
: > BUT... In all cases I need to have fixed heights. Is there a way to
put
: > either tag inside an HTML <TD> and have the same kind of scrolling
effect.
: >
: > This would allow me to fill the screen and have the size of the
scrolling
: > box change on resize.
:
: It was asked August of 2003 about a scrolling table where the header
: stayed fixed, the td's scrolled.
:
: It has taken me 4 days to find the page again (the original doesn't
: exist that I can find). Gotta love the archives.org site :)
:
: <URL:
:
http://web.archive.org/web/200306082...bleInMSIE.html

You didn't have to look that hard:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....phx.gbl#link1


http://rockintheplanet.com/lab/scrolltable.html

Doesn't scroll in my Mozilla, just cuts off the page and limits what I
can get to (data wise). Same effect in NS7.1, assumption is all mozilla
based browsers will do the same.

It gets worse in Opera :( The second and third row are stacked on one
another and still can't scroll the table.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Nov 22 '05 #30

P: n/a
Randy Webb wrote:
Roland Hall wrote:
"Randy Webb" <hi************@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Vo********************@comcast.com...
Jim M wrote:
I have had great success with using <iframe> with overflow-y set to

auto. I
can get a similar look with the <iframe> tag.

BUT... In all cases I need to have fixed heights. Is there a way
to

put
either tag inside an HTML <TD> and have the same kind of scrolling

effect.

This would allow me to fill the screen and have the size of the

scrolling
box change on resize.

It was asked August of 2003 about a scrolling table where the header
stayed fixed, the td's scrolled.

It has taken me 4 days to find the page again (the original doesn't
exist that I can find). Gotta love the archives.org site :)

<URL:

http://web.archive.org/web/200306082...bleInMSIE.html
You didn't have to look that hard:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....phx.gbl#link1


http://rockintheplanet.com/lab/scrolltable.html

Doesn't scroll in my Mozilla, just cuts off the page and limits what I
can get to (data wise). Same effect in NS7.1, assumption is all
mozilla
based browsers will do the same.

It gets worse in Opera :( The second and third row are stacked on one
another and still can't scroll the table.


So what has to be changed to make it compatible? The one at Brinkster is
very tough to slog through.

Bob Barrows
--
Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
"NO SPAM"
Nov 22 '05 #31

P: n/a
Bob Barrows wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
Roland Hall wrote:
"Randy Webb" <hi************@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Vo********************@comcast.com...
Jim M wrote:
> I have had great success with using <iframe> with overflow-y set
> to
auto. I
> can get a similar look with the <iframe> tag.
>
> BUT... In all cases I need to have fixed heights. Is there a way
> to
put
> either tag inside an HTML <TD> and have the same kind of scrolling
effect.
>
> This would allow me to fill the screen and have the size of the
scrolling
> box change on resize.

It was asked August of 2003 about a scrolling table where the
header
stayed fixed, the td's scrolled.

It has taken me 4 days to find the page again (the original doesn't
exist that I can find). Gotta love the archives.org site :)

<URL:

http://web.archive.org/web/200306082...bleInMSIE.html

You didn't have to look that hard:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e....phx.gbl#link1


http://rockintheplanet.com/lab/scrolltable.html

Doesn't scroll in my Mozilla, just cuts off the page and limits what
I
can get to (data wise). Same effect in NS7.1, assumption is all
mozilla
based browsers will do the same.

It gets worse in Opera :( The second and third row are stacked on one
another and still can't scroll the table.


So what has to be changed to make it compatible? The one at Brinkster
is
very tough to slog through.

Bob Barrows


Never mind. I found out I just had to remove the "px" from the row and div
height settings to make it work in Mozilla. I haven't been able to test it
in Opera ...

The column widths need to be tweaked but this works:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">

<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0">
<title></title>

</head>
<body>
<table border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse;" cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0">
<col width="150"> <col width="150"> <col width="150"> <col width="16">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Column Heading</th>
<th>Column Heading</th>
<th>Column Heading</th>
<th>&nbsp;</th>
</tr>
</thead> <tfoot> <tr>
<td>Footer Row</td>
<td>Footer Row</td>
<td>Footer Row</td>
<td><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot> <tbody>
<tr >
<td colspan="4">
<div style="height: 75; overflow: auto;">

<table border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse;" width="453"
cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<col width="150"> <col width="150"> <col width="150">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
<td>Data Cell</td>
</tr>

</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</td>
</tr>

</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</body>
</html>

Bob Barrows

--
Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
"NO SPAM"
Nov 22 '05 #32

P: n/a
Bob Barrows wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
Roland Hall wrote:
"Randy Webb" <hi************@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Vo********************@comcast.com...

Jim M wrote:

<--snip-->
http://rockintheplanet.com/lab/scrolltable.html

Doesn't scroll in my Mozilla, just cuts off the page and limits what I
can get to (data wise). Same effect in NS7.1, assumption is all
mozilla
based browsers will do the same.

It gets worse in Opera :( The second and third row are stacked on one
another and still can't scroll the table.

So what has to be changed to make it compatible? The one at Brinkster is
very tough to slog through.


I did just find out (by asking DU in comp.lang.javascript) about the
file not being there, its been moved/renamed:

<URL:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunc...lingTBody.html
/>

Shouldn't be that hard to modify it as needed, do it the old fashion way
by tinkering and testing. If that fails, ask in
comp.info.www.authoring.* as appropriate.
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Nov 22 '05 #33

P: n/a
Bob Barrows wrote:

<--snip-->
Never mind. I found out I just had to remove the "px" from the row and div
height settings to make it work in Mozilla. I haven't been able to test it
in Opera ...


Glad you got it work.

As written, it scrolls in Opera 7, without stacking anything.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Nov 22 '05 #34

P: n/a
"Randy Webb" wrote:
: Bob Barrows wrote:
:
: <--snip-->
:
: > Never mind. I found out I just had to remove the "px" from the row and
div
: > height settings to make it work in Mozilla. I haven't been able to test
it
: > in Opera ...
:
: Glad you got it work.
:
: As written, it scrolls in Opera 7, without stacking anything.

It appears the bar is moving. Wondering why anyone would support a browser
that requires you to pay to remove advertising. I'll look at it in Opera to
see what can be done but then I'm removing that POS from my system.

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp
Nov 22 '05 #35

P: n/a
: "Randy Webb" wrote:
: : Bob Barrows wrote:
: :
: : <--snip-->
: :
: : > Never mind. I found out I just had to remove the "px" from the row and
: div
: : > height settings to make it work in Mozilla. I haven't been able to
test
: it
: : > in Opera ...
: :
: : Glad you got it work.
: :
: : As written, it scrolls in Opera 7, without stacking anything.

Opera has a problem with border-collapse: collapse. It doesn't collapse the
border on the right side of a table.
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/tes...2/sec17-06.htm

I'm testing with Opera 7.23 Build 3227, Mozilla 1.6, IE
6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.030422-1633

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp
Nov 22 '05 #36

P: n/a
Roland Hall wrote:
"Randy Webb" wrote:
: Bob Barrows wrote:
:
: <--snip-->
:
: > Never mind. I found out I just had to remove the "px" from the row and
div
: > height settings to make it work in Mozilla. I haven't been able to test
it
: > in Opera ...
:
: Glad you got it work.
:
: As written, it scrolls in Opera 7, without stacking anything.

It appears the bar is moving.
Which "bar"? I am looking at the page now, and its working perfectly in
Opera 7.
Wondering why anyone would support a browser that requires you to pay to remove advertising.
Perhaps because it doesn't have security patches come out once a week
(exaggeration but I hope you get my point) and has better standards
compliance than IE does? Its actually *easier* to support it than IE is.
I'll look at it in Opera to see what can be done but then I'm removing that POS from my system.


If MS didn't have its sites set on 100% domination by requiring that I
have a web browser to be able to use my PC, I would do the same thing
with IE since my feelings are generally the same about IE as you have
stated your opinion to be about Opera.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Nov 22 '05 #37

P: n/a
Roland Hall wrote:
: "Randy Webb" wrote:
: : Bob Barrows wrote:
: :
: : <--snip-->
: :
: : > Never mind. I found out I just had to remove the "px" from the row and
: div
: : > height settings to make it work in Mozilla. I haven't been able to
test
: it
: : > in Opera ...
: :
: : Glad you got it work.
: :
: : As written, it scrolls in Opera 7, without stacking anything.

Opera has a problem with border-collapse: collapse. It doesn't collapse the
border on the right side of a table.
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/tes...2/sec17-06.htm

I'm testing with Opera 7.23 Build 3227, Mozilla 1.6, IE
6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.030422-1633


Yeah, but Opera and Mozilla get the first table right, IE gets it
horribly wrong.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Nov 22 '05 #38

P: n/a
"Randy Webb" wrote:
: > Opera has a problem with border-collapse: collapse. It doesn't collapse
the
: > border on the right side of a table.
: > http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/tes...2/sec17-06.htm
: >
: > I'm testing with Opera 7.23 Build 3227, Mozilla 1.6, IE
: > 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.030422-1633
: >
: Yeah, but Opera and Mozilla get the first table right, IE gets it
: horribly wrong.

I go to comparison sights and they state Opera supports border-collapse:
collapse fully but it was 7.1. Perhaps something has changed?!

You should check out this page with all 3. IE has two errors and that is
captions left and right are not supported. Opera doesn't work with most on
the page. I think it was on Eric Meyer's site that I read how wonderful
Mozilla and Opera are with DHTML but I'm missing it.

Opera doesn't like <tr height=320> inside a <tbody> element. When you have
this, the <tfoot> displays right below the <thead> instead of below the
<tbody> as it should however it scrolls.

Mozilla doesn't show a scrollbar unless you set overflow: scroll and then it
just stretches rather than overflowing. Left/right scrollbars work but
Up/Down do not.

I've even changed from a nested table to SPANs and ONLY IE works.
Mozilla is off in left field and cannot assign a width to a SPAN.
Opera screws up as before. However, if I remove the <tfoot> entry, then
Opera works as it should.
Mozilla still has issues.

http://web.archive.org/web/200306082...bleInMSIE.html

The above link is not apples to apples. It's a table above a scrollable DIV
and there is NO footer.
The other issue is since overflow is set on the outside, with the div, the
left/right scrollbars are now present, even though they are not needed.

Here is where I'm testing: http://kiddanger.com/lab/test/scrolltable.html

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp


Nov 22 '05 #39

P: n/a
"Randy Webb" wrote:
: Roland Hall wrote:
: > "Randy Webb" wrote:
: > : Bob Barrows wrote:
: > :
: > : <--snip-->
: > :
: > : > Never mind. I found out I just had to remove the "px" from the row
and
: > div
: > : > height settings to make it work in Mozilla. I haven't been able to
test
: > it
: > : > in Opera ...
: > :
: > : Glad you got it work.
: > :
: > : As written, it scrolls in Opera 7, without stacking anything.
: >
: > It appears the bar is moving.
:
: Which "bar"? I am looking at the page now, and its working perfectly in
: Opera 7.

Which page are you looking at?

: > Wondering why anyone would support a browser that requires you to pay to
remove advertising.
:
: Perhaps because it doesn't have security patches come out once a week
: (exaggeration but I hope you get my point) and has better standards
: compliance than IE does? Its actually *easier* to support it than IE is.

You don't get fame by going after unknowns, now do you?

: > I'll look at it in Opera to see what can be done but then I'm removing
that POS from my system.
:
: If MS didn't have its sites set on 100% domination by requiring that I
: have a web browser to be able to use my PC, I would do the same thing
: with IE since my feelings are generally the same about IE as you have
: stated your opinion to be about Opera.

I haven't begun to state my feelings re: Opera. (O:=
I'm just getting started! It crashed when I tried to view full screen.
Self-inflicted DoS by hitting F-11.
--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp
Nov 22 '05 #40

P: n/a

"Roland Hall" <nobody@nowhere> wrote in message
news:eK**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
: "Randy Webb" wrote:
: : > Opera has a problem with border-collapse: collapse. It doesn't
collapse
: the
: : > border on the right side of a table.
: : > http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/tes...2/sec17-06.htm
: : >
: : > I'm testing with Opera 7.23 Build 3227, Mozilla 1.6, IE
: : > 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.030422-1633
: : >
: : Yeah, but Opera and Mozilla get the first table right, IE gets it
: : horribly wrong.
:
: I go to comparison sights and they state Opera supports border-collapse:
: collapse fully but it was 7.1. Perhaps something has changed?!
:
: You should check out this page with all 3. IE has two errors and that is
: captions left and right are not supported. Opera doesn't work with most
on
: the page. I think it was on Eric Meyer's site that I read how wonderful
: Mozilla and Opera are with DHTML but I'm missing it.
:
: Opera doesn't like <tr height=320> inside a <tbody> element. When you
have
: this, the <tfoot> displays right below the <thead> instead of below the
: <tbody> as it should however it scrolls.
:
: Mozilla doesn't show a scrollbar unless you set overflow: scroll and then
it
: just stretches rather than overflowing. Left/right scrollbars work but
: Up/Down do not.
:
: I've even changed from a nested table to SPANs and ONLY IE works.
: Mozilla is off in left field and cannot assign a width to a SPAN.
: Opera screws up as before. However, if I remove the <tfoot> entry, then
: Opera works as it should.
: Mozilla still has issues.
:
:
http://web.archive.org/web/200306082...bleInMSIE.html
:
: The above link is not apples to apples. It's a table above a scrollable
DIV
: and there is NO footer.
: The other issue is since overflow is set on the outside, with the div, the
: left/right scrollbars are now present, even though they are not needed.
:
: Here is where I'm testing: http://kiddanger.com/lab/test/scrolltable.html

I forgot to supply you with this link:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunc...ormatting.html

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp
Nov 22 '05 #41

P: n/a
Roland Hall wrote:
"Randy Webb" wrote:
: Roland Hall wrote:
: > "Randy Webb" wrote:
: > : Bob Barrows wrote:
: > :
: > : <--snip-->
: > :
: > : > Never mind. I found out I just had to remove the "px" from the row
and
: > div
: > : > height settings to make it work in Mozilla. I haven't been able to
test
: > it
: > : > in Opera ...
: > :
: > : Glad you got it work.
: > :
: > : As written, it scrolls in Opera 7, without stacking anything.
: >
: > It appears the bar is moving.
:
: Which "bar"? I am looking at the page now, and its working perfectly in
: Opera 7.

Which page are you looking at?
The one I was looking at was the one the code was posted for, I think we
were looking at two different pages :-(

: > Wondering why anyone would support a browser that requires you to pay to
remove advertising.
:
: Perhaps because it doesn't have security patches come out once a week
: (exaggeration but I hope you get my point) and has better standards
: compliance than IE does? Its actually *easier* to support it than IE is.

You don't get fame by going after unknowns, now do you?


I dont want fame to start with.

Nor do I want to get into a "which browser is best" argument, it has no
end, nobody is right, nobody is wrong because its subjective.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Nov 22 '05 #42

P: n/a
"Randy Webb" <hi************@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ue********************@comcast.com...
: Roland Hall wrote:
:
: > : Which "bar"? I am looking at the page now, and its working perfectly
in
: > : Opera 7.
: >
: > Which page are you looking at?
:
: The one I was looking at was the one the code was posted for, I think we
: were looking at two different pages :-(

Perhaps but I was looking for you to reference a link. Please do so I can
test it myself.

: > : > Wondering why anyone would support a browser that requires you to
pay to
: > remove advertising.
: > :
: > : Perhaps because it doesn't have security patches come out once a week
: > : (exaggeration but I hope you get my point) and has better standards
: > : compliance than IE does? Its actually *easier* to support it than IE
is.
: >
: > You don't get fame by going after unknowns, now do you?
:
: I dont want fame to start with.
:
: Nor do I want to get into a "which browser is best" argument, it has no
: end, nobody is right, nobody is wrong because its subjective.

I think they each have their pros and cons and we all usually like best what
we're used to but that was not what I meant. Perhaps I didn't state it
clearly.

My comment: "You don't get fame by going after unknowns, now do you?" was
not directed at you but in reference to your comment re: "Perhaps because it
doesn't have security patches come out once a week..." meaning Microsoft is
a target, IMHO, for two reasons:

1. They're commercial and proponents of open systems don't like paying for
anything. I put that in a category all by itself. Jes' sayin'...
2. You get more attention finding a security flaw in Microsoft's code than
you do finding one in Opera or Mozilla, etc.

I haven't seen code yet that actually uses:

<table>
<thead>
<tfoot>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
....
</table>
and see it work properly in Mozilla and Opera. That is what I'm testing.

To give the table height, the <tr height=320> was used but then Opera has an
issue because it puts the footer under <thead> instead of <tbody>. And to
be completely honest, the scroll in not attached to the table anyway. It's
the DIV that scrolls. Using the above, the DIV is set to 100%, inside the
<tr height=320> so it expands within that parent. Then a nested table,
which I have changed to SPANs scrolls within that when the DIV is given
overflow: auto. However, Mozilla doesn't like spans and does not set the
width= to the SPANs. In the immortal words of Gilda Radner, "It's always
something."

If you set the overflow: scroll, then Mozilla is happy but only with the
nested table, not the SPANs but it doesn't scroll, it stretches the
container to fit the elements within it.

And, regarding standards, no browser is 100% compliant with ALL standards so
I think that is a weak argument although I agree Microsoft needs a kick in
the pants. Microsoft does come up with some good functions, that IMHO,
should be standards, like overflow-x and overflow-y or perhaps overflow
should be modified to support: { overflow: xy | x y } where we could have
what we have now: overflow: hidden, inline, none so current working code
works, as is but additional functionality could overcome some issues like
when you do not want both scrollbars.

{ overflow: xy } - scroll, hidden, visible, auto (current)
{ overflow: x y } - scroll, hidden, visible, auto (proposed) both must be
set. If you only want one then:
{ overflow: hidden auto }

Then we don't need a new attribute: overflow-x or overflow-y to get the same
results. I think the standards committee missed simple issues like this
because you can set border: {1,4} but you can't do it with scrollbars?
Clearly someone was asleep here.
I was originally using overflow-y and when I changed it to just overflow,
Opera was happy, at least for the scrolling.

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp

Nov 22 '05 #43

P: n/a
"Roland Hall" <nobody@nowhere> wrote in message
news:uG**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
: I haven't seen code yet that actually uses:
:
: <table>
: <thead>
: <tfoot>
: <tbody>
: <tr>
: <td>
: ...
: </table>
: and see it work properly in Mozilla and Opera. That is what I'm testing.
The above should be div instead of td.

: what we have now: overflow: hidden, inline, none so current working code

The above should be:

what we have now: { overflow: scroll | hidden | visible | auto } so current
working code

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp
Nov 22 '05 #44

P: n/a
"Roland Hall" wrote:

Wondering why anyone would support a browser that requires
you to pay to remove advertising.


Over here we're wondering why anyone would support a browser that allows
ActiveX controls and unrequested pop-ups.

--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms. Please do not contact
me directly or ask me to contact you directly for assistance. If your
question is worth asking, it's worth posting.
Nov 22 '05 #45

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.