I agree
| I could also say that tables are only supported well if done correctly, too.
| How many posts a day do you see here from people with tables done
| incorrectly?
|
| > that takes some knowledge of how / why it works and doesn't work. Users
| > need to understand that before they go off and use it
|
| Well, you get no argument from me on this. Any tool requires that you have
| some knowledge of it before you can use it well.
|
| > The old proverb of "Teach a man how to fish"
|
| Isn't that what we are all trying to do here? 8)
|
| --
| Murray
|
| | >I saw your use either comment
| > My general comment was aimed more at your general statement:
| > "It is not necessary to use tables as a layout tool in most cases now that
| > CSS positioning is as well supported as it is."
| >
| > CSS is only "supported well" if it is done correctly, and that takes some
| > knowledge of how / why it works and doesn't work. Users
| > need to understand that before they go off and use it
| >
| > IMHO
| > Just posting just corrections to poorly used CSS absolute positioning (by
| > apparently a user that does not understand how to use CSS
| > correctly or is trying to do it all in the WYSIWYG), may not help the user
| > understand that they need to learn how to do it right
| > before they rely on it for a site layout (who will correct it next time?)
| > The old proverb of "Teach a man how to fish"
| > --
| >
| > _____________________________________________
| > SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
| > "Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
| > To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see:
| >
http://www.net-sites.com/sitebuilder/newsgroups.asp
| > _____________________________________________
| >
| >
| > | > | Well, I never said anything other than that, did I? 8)
| > |
| > | Use tables until you don't need to. That's what I was trying to say at
| > | least.
| > |
| > | Start by using CSS for your styles. As you use it, you will learn
| > better
| > | methods and expand your understanding.
| > |
| > | My issue was with the specific comment I included in my post.
| > |
| > | --
| > | Murray
| > |
| > | | > | > While I agree with you that in the hands of a knowledgeable user, the
| > use
| > | > of CSS and absolute positioning (instead of tables) for
| > | > layout can be effectively done for most browsers
| > | > - unfortunately too many users do not take the time to learn what is
| > the
| > | > right way to do it and understand what works and why (or
| > | > why not)
| > | >
| > | > That's why you will find that unless the user indicates some level of
| > | > understanding of html/css and cross browser design, many of us
| > | > will recommend sticking w/ tables
| > | > - especially for beginners or WYSIWYG users
| > | >
| > | > --
| > | >
| > | > _____________________________________________
| > | > SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
| > | > "Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
| > | > To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see:
| > | >
http://www.net-sites.com/sitebuilder/newsgroups.asp
| > | > _____________________________________________
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | > | > | > I agree about tables -
| > | > | > they take too long to load and are the design method of the
| > past...
| > | > |
| > | > | Mostly urban legend. If a table works for your design, use it. A
| > table
| > | > | itself does not take too long to download. A complex table (i.e.,
| > one
| > | > | containing many nested tables and lots of col- and rowspans) leads
| > to a
| > | > page
| > | > | loaded with table tags, and that can give you a heavy code load, and
| > a
| > | > long
| > | > | browser render. Such tables are poorly designed.
| > | > |
| > | > | The real truth is this. It is not necessary to use tables as a
| > layout
| > | > tool
| > | > | in most cases now that CSS positioning is as well supported as it
| > is.
| > | > It is
| > | > | not required that you use CSS, although doing so will usually make
| > your
| > | > | pages much lighter weight, and much easier to maintain. If you
| > | > understand
| > | > | HTML tables and how they work, you can use both to good advantage.
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | --
| > | > | Murray
| > | > |
| > | > | | > | > | > Thanks for your advice. I'm working on implementing this now, and
| > I
| > | > have
| > | > | > created jpegs of the gradients (which work in Netscape, which I
| > also
| > | > | > downloaded), so it should be cross-browser compatible. I agree
| > about
| > | > | > tables -
| > | > | > they take too long to load and are the design method of the
| > past...
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Robb
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "Nicholas Malone" wrote:
| > | > | >
| > | > | >> You do this with backgrounds, although a gradient background
| > could be
| > | > | >> tough
| > | > | >> to get lined up.
| > | > | >> You need to set up a "shell" div to contain everything. The
| > header,
| > | > | >> footer,
| > | > | >> everything is inside this shell.
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> margin: 0px auto; to make sure it centers in all displays.
| > | > | >> width: 760 px; to avoid the horizontal scroll
| > | > | >> background-image: url('images/something.jpg');
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> In your case, the white area (Welcome to the Internet home...)
| > would
| > | > be a
| > | > | >> float left div that has its own background and sets the overall
| > page
| > | > | >> length.
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> The right side isn't its own div. Rather, the green is
| > something.jpg
| > | > | >> showing
| > | > | >> through. The text blocks (date, Service Times, etc.) are then in
| > | > their
| > | > | >> own
| > | > | >> small divs floating right.
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> So, if you wanted three columns in three colors, you would make
| > | > | >> something.jpg with the left and right colors, then the center
| > | > div/column
| > | > | >> would have its own background. To center that div in the shell
| > use
| > | > | >> width:
| > | > | >> lessthan760px; margin: 0px auto;
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> And, hey, learning CSS is both fun and interesting. All layout
| > tables
| > | > | >> must
| > | > | >> be banished! Don't give in to the dark side!
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> That said, download Netscape and look at your site. It needs
| > some
| > | > help.
| > | > | >> You
| > | > | >> need a "clear" div above the footer.
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> clear:both; to keep the footer text below the content
| > | > | >> font: 1px/1px monospace; to make the div only 1px high
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> "Robb B" wrote:
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> > I am using FP 2003, and I want a three column layout using CSS.
| > I
| > | > have
| > | > | >> > it set
| > | > | >> > up (you can view the sample at
| >
www.cbcwichita.org/csspage.shtml)
| > | > using
| > | > | >> > CSS
| > | > | >> > now, but there's a problem. I want to have variable length
| > pages,
| > | > with
| > | > | >> > the
| > | > | >> > page length (height) equal to the height of the center column.
| > That
| > | > way
| > | > | >> > the
| > | > | >> > background color on each of my side columns will stretch as far
| > | > down
| > | > | >> > the page
| > | > | >> > as the center column text/images go. If I can set it up this
| > way,
| > | > then
| > | > | >> > I can
| > | > | >> > use a dynamic web template for my page layout; otherwise I
| > would
| > | > have
| > | > | >> > to
| > | > | >> > manually configure the height for each column in every page
| > | > (Yikes!).
| > | > | >> > Any
| > | > | >> > suggestions on how to implement variable height columns using
| > CSS.
| > | > I'm
| > | > | >> > wondering if the problem is that the "height" property is not
| > | > | >> > inheritable. If
| > | > | >> > that's the problem, what can I do to fix that? If it's not,
| > what is
| > | > my
| > | > | >> > solution? Thanks for your help.
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
