Problem with table width?

[Olav Tollefsen]

Take a look at this page:

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

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

Olav

[Els]

Re: Problem with table width?

Olav Tollefsen wrote:
[color=blue]
> Take a look at this page:
>
> http://www.webinnovation.no/test/test.htm
>
> Why is the left table with the text "Menu" not 160 pixels
> as stated in the HTML code?[/color]

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

--
Els

http://locusmeus.com/

Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

[Kris]

Re: Problem with table width?

In article <40fc23f2$1@new s.broadpark.no> , "Olav Tollefsen" <x@y.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> http://www.webinnovation.no/test/test.htm
>
> Why is the left table[/color]

Tablecell.
[color=blue]
> with the text "Menu" not 160 pixels as stated in the
> HTML code?[/color]

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

--
Kris
<kristiaan@xs4a ll.netherlands> (nl)

[Olav Tollefsen]

Re: Problem with table width?

"Els" <els.aNOSPAM@ti scali.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns952BDE2 1A4DEEls@130.13 3.1.4...[color=blue]
> Olav Tollefsen wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Take a look at this page:
> >
> > http://www.webinnovation.no/test/test.htm
> >
> > Why is the left table with the text "Menu" not 160 pixels
> > as stated in the HTML code?[/color]
>
> The whole table is 785, and 160 is 1/4.906 of that, roughly 1
> fifth. What I see in my browser is your 'menu' being 1 fifth of
> the width of the whole table. Can't be bothered to count pixels
> though. Too small.[/color]

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

Why the big difference for this simple code?

Olav

[Els]

Re: Problem with table width?

Olav Tollefsen wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Els" <els.aNOSPAM@ti scali.nl> wrote in message
> news:Xns952BDE2 1A4DEEls@130.13 3.1.4...[color=green]
>> Olav Tollefsen wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Take a look at this page:
>> >
>> > http://www.webinnovation.no/test/test.htm
>> >
>> > Why is the left table with the text "Menu" not 160
>> > pixels as stated in the HTML code?[/color]
>>
>> The whole table is 785, and 160 is 1/4.906 of that,
>> roughly 1 fifth. What I see in my browser is your 'menu'
>> being 1 fifth of the width of the whole table. Can't be
>> bothered to count pixels though. Too small.[/color]
>
> Which browser did you test with? It doesn't look OK in IE
> 6.0. It looks OK in Mozilla 1.7.1.[/color]

Firebird. I see the difference now, yes.
[color=blue]
> Why the big difference for this simple code?[/color]

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

http://tinyurl.com/4yu8l

--
Els

http://locusmeus.com/

Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Problem with table width?

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Olav Tollefsen wrote:
[color=blue]
> Why the big difference for this simple code?[/color]

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

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

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

Even better, don't use tables for layout.