Ok first of all, don't start with css <--> table. I know css is superior but I'm not superior in CSS...
Now my problem is I need 2 different tables under each other
like...
<table><tr>.....</table>
and then again
<table>....</table>
Now when I do that they go next to each other...
It seems stupid to work that way... but i'm using blogger and for some reaons it would make my life a lot easier...
If you want to know why I'll post the url, but I guess I have spammed enough allready...
Milio: Since you're using table, you're apparently not a structural HTML addict, so you should simply but a good old <br /> right after the first </table>.
Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI
[This message has been edited by poi (edited 11-10-2003).]
Yeah I knew that br thingie,the problem is it doesn't work with the table I have... it gets placed on the left side of the other table.
But I tried a basic table with br and it should work.... don't know why it doens't here... but i'll try it out some more before I post the code
And I'm not a structural html addict because well I'm still very much a newb when it comes to css... blame me for it, hate me for it, don't speak to me for it, but my visitors couldn't care less
They will when you can't get your code to work and the page is all fucked up =)
And I know you don't want to hear it....but.....if you're going to bother putting so much work into something like this, don't you think it's worth learning how to do it right?
quote:And I'm not a structural html addict because well I'm still very much a newb when it comes to css... blame me for it, hate me for it, don't speak to me for it, but my visitors couldn't care less
Milio: While I do believe in cutting people some slack, I've got to agree with DL here: if you're going to do something, you might as well do it right. It sounds to me (correct me if I am wrong) that you don't really have much of an interest in learning how to do things properly. There are plenty of people here who know what they are doing, and they will be more than happy to help you out, but you need to be willing to put the effort into it first. I can tell you right now that if you come in with this sort of attitude (who really cares what my site's innards look like as long as it works right now), you're going to rub some people the wrong way.
I'm not trying to get on your case--really, I know it sounds like it, but I'm not. It's just hard for some of us to understand why you wouldn't want to do things the right way.
Now, if you come back and tell me that your still learning, and you'll get there eventually, then everything is cool. But if you tell me that you really aren't interested in doing things the right way, then I'm afraid I won't be able help you.
Sorry if this came out a bit harsh. I tried to be as diplomatic as possible, but I didn't want to beat around the bush either.
Ok you are right, if i want to make sites, I have to know this. I'll look into it.
It's just my tables can be rather complex. I do slice an image you know. Most of the times it's 2 pieces, but when I have an iframe it's like 6 pieces. And it's so easy with photoshop to do that then... With CSS I'm affraid it's a lot of work to get it right.
Things as having the right padding-left and padding-right in an iframe allready takes away WAAAY too much time for me....
now I have to learn from scratch how to define a table in css?
It scares me away...
Also are css tables allready supported in IE 5.0?
"They will when your page looks fucked up". Well codewise it's fine now, I'll fuck it up when I change i'm affraid
[This message has been edited by Milio (edited 11-11-2003).]
Hooboy, I can see we have our work cut out for us.
It's not about learning how to use a new tool to make a table, it's about leaving tables behind altogether and learning a new design philosophy. In a nutshell, table-based design was always about building a page around the visual presentation. In the new design philosophy, site structure is far more important. You start with the underlying structure (done with HTML), and once that is in place you style the content with CSS. The problem with the old table-based designs was that the presentation was getting mixed up with the structure.
I don't think that's a very good explanation, but there's just so much to say and I don't want to overwhelm you right now, at least not with words. I do want to show you something that, if you haven't seen it before, will most likely blow your mind. It's called the CSS Zen Garden. It's an experiment by Dave Shea designed to show the beauty of CSS design. I would urge you to go take a look at it--there are currently over 100 different designs. The underlying HTML is all the same, and only the CSS changes.
That should give you an idea about what is possible with CSS, and once you get into it it should provide some inspiration as well as ideas for new tricks and methods. I'm glad to see that you have a "learning attitude" (not sure if that's an English phrase, but it's common in Korean). Like I said, the inmates here are always happy to help those who take the first steps themselves. I think you'll find that you'll be able to learn a lot here. I know I have.
quote:Things as having the right padding-left and padding-right in an iframe allready takes away WAAAY too much time for me....
Well a nice quick solution to that: don't use iframes.
From what I've seen on your pages there is absolutely no functional reason to use an iframe. Add to that the fact that iframes are the tool of satan, and we've got all kinds of good reasons not to use the
And for the record, there is no such thing as 'CSS Tables'.
The idea of non-tabled design is to leave the concept of using tables for your layout far behind, and use HTNL and CSS as they are intended to be used: HTML for mark up, CSS for style.
Ok so you think I can drop my iframes, then could you tell me how... I have to have a scrollbar when my content passes my pictures "box"... I've been searching for alternatives on doing that but I haven't found one... I really want to drop those frames though... I just wonder how I could archieve that
posted 11-10-2003 09:59
