ALIGN=RIGHT a Table???
Geoff Robertson
difficulty. Is it possible. One reference I have says it works and the
other doesn't mention it.
Please email me if you can help
Thanks
Geoff Robertson
------------------------------------
email: geof...@powerup.com.au
home page: www.powerup.com.au/~geoffrob
------------------------------------
WINDSONG pty ltd
Big Dave Schmitt
: dsc...@umbc.edu (Big Dave Schmitt) wrote:
: >Geoff Robertson (geof...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
: >: I have been trying to align=right a table (not its contents), and having
: >: difficulty. Is it possible. One reference I have says it works and the
: >: other doesn't mention it.
: >So, the answer to your question is that you *can* do it using the
: >ALIGN=RIGHT attribute, but you'll need a browser which properly
: >implements HTML 3.0 tables to see it.
: True, but it can be done in Netscapese too:
: <table width=100%><tr><td align=right><table><tr><td>rest f your table
: here</td></tr></table></td></tr>
I applaud your ingenuity Michel, but that is a pretty ugly hack d;-)
Also note that you should be quoting that "100%" and that width attribute
values using the "%" character are not supported by the current HTML 3.0
Specs. They are in the 7 July table-only DTD, but that's not HTML 3.0
(yet), so I have no idea how non-Netscape browsers would render this code.
And don't forget to close the outer table d:)
-Dave
--
Big Dave Schmitt (__)
Math Major / CS Minor / UCS Consultant U of Md Balto Co (oo)------\
dsc...@gl.umbc.edu http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~dschmi1 \/ | \
Everything above is based solely on my own opinions. ||---w|| *
Michel Vuijlsteke
>Geoff Robertson (geof...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
>: I have been trying to align=right a table (not its contents), and having
>: difficulty. Is it possible. One reference I have says it works and the
>: other doesn't mention it.
>So, the answer to your question is that you *can* do it using the
>ALIGN=RIGHT attribute, but you'll need a browser which properly
>implements HTML 3.0 tables to see it.
True, but it can be done in Netscapese too:
<table width=100%><tr><td align=right><table><tr><td>rest f your table
here</td></tr></table></td></tr>
Voila!
Michel.V...@rug.ac.be
Netpoint (Griffo - IDeA)
http://www.netpoint.be/np/griffo/idea/
http://eduserv.rug.ac.be/~mvuijlst/steph/
Martian
++Geoff Robertson (geof...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
++: I have been trying to align=right a table (not its contents), and having
++: difficulty. Is it possible. One reference I have says it works and the
++: other doesn't mention it.
[ Pointers to the right places ]
++You will not, however, find it in Netscape's proprietary table spec
++because they don't support ALIGNing of tables. Netscape also doesn't
++implement ALIGN=RIGHT for <P> or <H?> either, so I don't even think you
++can hack it d:)
Actually, you *can* hack it, as Netscape does have align = right
on *some* elements. Amazing, but true. Here's how to right align
a table in Netscape:
<table width = "100%">
<tr><td align = right>
<table border>
Real table content goes here.
</table>
</td></tr></table>
You can center tables in the same way. In fact, you can right align
paragraphs in this way as well....
You shouldn't of course use the above method.
Abigail (thinking twice, but posting this anyway)
Michael Kelsey
|> you think that was an ugly hack,
|> check out the code on http://www.earthlink.net/~xenovision/index.html
|>
|> now those are some serious tables...
Ah, ha! Another veiled bit of self-promotion here, and another
opportunity to point out publicly that those who cry loudest about what
great designers they are, usually aren't.
"Phew!" is definitely the right way to describe this site. It might be
visually interesting, but the markup is utter crap, and isn't even valid
Netscapisms, let alone being valid HTML! Your site COULD, if you applied
a tiny bit of expertise, be visually stimulating not only for Netscape but
for ANY HTML 3 compliant browser. Let's start by asking the Validators
Weblint: http://www.khoros.unm.edu/staff/neilb/weblint.html
HTMLChek: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh/htmlchek.html
SGMLS: ftp://ftp.ifi.uio.no/pub/SGML/SP
or the Validator: http://www.halsoft.com/html-val-svc/
what they think. Both HalSoft and Weblint (which include support for
Netscape's PDL) generate hundreds of lines of error messages. I'll put
into human-readable form the ones that are REAL errors, as opposed to
errors that magically appear because of an error error that induces future
invalid markup.
Line 2: This is not a comment, since there is whitespace between the <!
delimiter and the "--" comment marker.
Lines 6-8: Multiple BODY opening containers.
Lines 38-40: Headings and paragraphs embedded within an anchor.
Lines 41-42: TR and TD closing tags are in wrong order, leading to nesting
confusion of all future tables and cells.
Line 53: Another invalid comment, with the same reason as line 2. There
are over a dozen of these scattered through the document. Each one
generates two error messages.
Lines 95, 182, 204 et seq.: There is no such TD attribute as HEIGHT.
Line 350: A table cell is opened without any table ROW (TR).
Line 405: There is no such attribute as NAME (and certainly not a
valueless attribute) for the FORM element).
Line 422: You close the BODY of your document. God knows what is going to
happen to your many lines of markup after this.
Line 423: You close a table cell without closing the FORM which is
included within it. Containers of any kind CANNOT overlap in HTML.
Line 426: You close a FORM in a cell without any corresponding opening tag
in the same cell. Containers of any kind CANNOT overlap in HTML.
Of course, there are loads of stylistic problems with the page, all of
which indicate a significant lack of understanding of human-factors
design, effective communication, or resource management.
You don't seem to be able to line up your "descriptions" with the nested
tables you're using to emulate KEWL blinking buttons, even when Netscape
provides the ability to vertically align adjacent cells in a table.
You make the unrecognizable buttons the links, instead of (or in addition
to) the actual lines of GIANT DESCRIPTIVE TEXT which are far more
eye-catching.
Have you ever actually tried to read dark blue text against a black
background? Any previously visited link (such as your misguided
encouragement for people to download Netscape) magically DISAPPEARS on the
page.
I don't know what the graphic on the left side of your page is supposed to
be, but it appears to be a few speckles of dark green and yellow against
the black background.
Oh, and the best part of all. The one link on your page which might
possibly have some intelligible content that someone might actually be
interested in (if they haven't just given up wading through all of the
crap) causes Netscape to crash instantly:
XenoVision, Inc. is a design consultancy that is looking *to work*
with ad agencies, corporations and production companies on
creating advanced websites. We strive to innovate with current
HTML technology through the creation of visually stimulating
interactive designs. XenoVision can work from idea conception
through final upload and maintainence.
I've marked the crashing link above with "*"; it connects to <URL:
http://www.earthlink.net/~xenovision/website/services.html>.
One sincerely hopes that any advertising agency, corporation, or
production company will immediately take the hint.
-- Mike Kelsey
--
[ My opinions are not endorsed by SLAC, Caltech, or the US government ]
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire
off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark
near the Tannhauser Gate. All these memories will be lost in time,
like tears in rain." -- Roy Baty
dcpugh
Malcolm Box
And yet I think it's the worst site I've seen. The only way to work out where
the links are is to trash the screen, the <blink> is exverywhere, the tables
don't line up (even on Netscape 1.1N, which is what it's supposed to be
optimised for), and the content is zero (there are even broken links).
I'm sitting on a corporate lan, running the 'proper' browser for the site and
it's still slow, ugly and unusable (I'd especially like to mention the blink
page, which doesn't, but slows the machine to a crawl)
Urrrghhhh - and they clain to be HTML coders! Hack city.
Malcolm
---
All opinions expressed are mine, not Logica's
Malcolm Box m.d....@ncl.ac.uk
+44 171 580 5858 x1468 bo...@logica.com
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/~n229163/
Lawrence San
<http://www.earthlink.net/~xenovision/index.html> ("now those are some
serious tables...") reveals a lot about the way different psychological
predispostions affect one's attitudes towards HTML and the Web.
The two previous respondents seem to have been morally outraged about that
page. My response when I saw it was to break down in hysterical
laughter. I couldn't stop laughing. Even the guy's ingenuous arrogance at
the top of the page -- "THIS IS A VISUALLY STIMULATING SITE. THE WAIT IS
WORTH IT" -- was funny.
The site made me think of Darth Vader's Control Panel -- the whole thing
made up of gigantic table borders in midnight blue with little flashing
lights and almost nothing else. True, I doubt the guy who designed the
site was *trying* to be funny, he probably thought that was "tough"
design, but so what... I got a great laugh out of it, and he and I aren't
competing for the same kind of design clients, that's for sure...
That may not be my kind of design, but I'm open to many kinds of art, even
unintentional forms, and there's sometimes artistic beauty to be found in
ludicrous purity. His site is almost archetypal in its totally
content-free heavy metallism. Highly recommended as an artistic/ironic
experience! Thank god for crazy artists on the Web -- the SGML crowd
doesn't "own" the Web! What's almost as funny as the page itself is the
fact that somebody would actually run it through an *HTML Validator* and
then in all seriousness criticize the code line-by-line! Can you imagine
if Vincent Van Gogh designed a Web site, not displaying his paintings, you
understand, but using HTML itself the way he used paint... the site would
be all cockeyed like his wonderful paintings... and the people here would
run it through a Validator! (I'm laughing now, I can't stop...) Talk
about missing the point!
--
Lawrence San s...@sanstudio.com
http://www.sanstudio.com/users/san/
Graphic Design...Copywriting...Cartooning & Animation
Michael Kelsey
|> I think the reactions expressed here to
|> <http://www.earthlink.net/~xenovision/index.html> ("now those are some
|> serious tables...") reveals a lot about the way different psychological
|> predispostions affect one's attitudes towards HTML and the Web.
|>
|> The two previous respondents seem to have been morally outraged about that
|> page.
Clearly you didn't actually _read_ my response. You might not have seen
it, since your followup doesn't reference my posting, and you mentioned
the disk crash at your ISP in another post. However, you describe my post
below, so I must assume you saw it, and skipped the good bits.
My response when I saw it was to break down in hysterical
|> laughter. I couldn't stop laughing. Even the guy's ingenuous arrogance at
|> the top of the page -- "THIS IS A VISUALLY STIMULATING SITE. THE WAIT IS
|> WORTH IT" -- was funny.
Me too. In fact, I actually agree that it's a TERRIFIC piece of "HTML Art."
The visual impact is tremendous, and as an exmaple of using the tools of
content-based markup for a completely different, unintended purpose, it is
wonderful.
|> His site is almost archetypal in its totally
|> content-free heavy metallism. Highly recommended as an artistic/ironic
|> experience! Thank god for crazy artists on the Web -- the SGML crowd
|> doesn't "own" the Web!
Except that you have completely and totally MISSED what this "crazy
artist" was advertising. He was explicitly advertising his site as "good
design" for "maximum audience" effect. He was NOT claiming to be an
artist, nor was he advertising his Star Trek control panel as some sort of
abstract, artistic use of HTML. He was explicitly claiming it as a good
example of proper design and use of HTML for information transfer. In
fact, at the bottom of the page he had an advertisment for himself as a
Web consultant for advertising agencies and companies (which amusingly,
cause the very browser he designed for to crash!).
What's almost as funny as the page itself is the
|> fact that somebody would actually run it through an *HTML Validator* and
|> then in all seriousness criticize the code line-by-line!
If someone claims to be a structural engineer, then I am certainly going
to criticize her work on the basis of sound engineering principles, and
NOT whether the lines and numbers make pretty patterns on a page. If
someone claims to be an architectural artist, then I am going to criticize
his work on the basis of color, form, shape and function. Can you see the
distinction here, or do you feel that any sort of technical criticism is
completely out of place as long as the result looks good to some person
some where?
Can you imagine
|> if Vincent Van Gogh designed a Web site, not displaying his paintings, you
|> understand, but using HTML itself the way he used paint... the site would
|> be all cockeyed like his wonderful paintings... and the people here would
|> run it through a Validator!
No, because Van Gogh would have had the intelligence, honesty, and insight
to call his work "Art," and not "Technical Design." If someone claims
their work as an example of technically accurate design, to be emulated by
others, then it should be judged on that basis. If someone claims their
work as an example of ART (such as the OTIS site, or The Spot, or some
beautiful examples of hyperfiction using dynamically generated tables of
links and text fragments) then it should be judged on that basis. You
seem to have a difficult time separating the two.
(I'm laughing now, I can't stop...) Talk
|> about missing the point!
You're right. You sure did miss the point, 100%.
Lawrence San
kel...@cithe501.cithep.caltech.edu (Michael Kelsey) wrote:
> Except that you have completely and totally MISSED what this "crazy
> artist" was advertising. He was explicitly advertising his site as "good
> design" for "maximum audience" effect. He was NOT claiming to be an
> artist, nor was he advertising his Star Trek control panel as some sort of
> abstract, artistic use of HTML. He was explicitly claiming it as a good
> example of proper design and use of HTML for information transfer. In
> fact, at the bottom of the page he had an advertisment for himself as a
> Web consultant for advertising agencies and companies (which amusingly,
> cause the very browser he designed for to crash!).
You're right, I did miss that. One glance at the site and I just assumed
it was purely for visual effect; I didn't see much text at all and didn't
bother reading any of it. If there were a commercial client who actually
hired a designer after seeing that, they would presumably be interested in
the Darth Vader effects, and not care about anything but the initial
effect anyway. I have no reason to defend the guy as a designer or an
HTML coder... but I still think the page was funny as hell.
Big Dave Schmitt
: On 24 Aug 1995 06:42:08 GMT, Big Dave Schmitt wrote:
: [...]
: >[...] Netscape also doesn't
: >implement ALIGN=RIGHT for <P> or <H?> either, so I don't even think you
: >can hack it d:)
: In fact, it doesn't support any form of align for <P> (in version 1.1N
: at least).
Well that's simply not the case for me. Here's some code:
<title>foo</title>
<p align=center>A centered paragraph</p>
<p>A default left-alinged paragraph</p>
In Netscape 1.1N for Macintosh (680x0), MS-Windows, and X11 (SGI/Irix)
the above page comes out like so:
A centered paragraph
A default left-alinged paragraph
I call that supporting align=center for <p>. They don't do align=right,
but align=center works fine. If your copy doesn't do it, you should
probably reinstall it.
-Dave
--
Big Dave Schmitt University of Md Baltimore County (__)
Math major / CS minor / UCS Client Services (oo)------\
dsc...@umbc.edu http://umbc.edu/%7Edschmi1/ \/ | \
Don't blame UMBC or UCS for the opinions stated above. ||---w|| *
Christian Belisle
[...]
>[...] Netscape also doesn't
>implement ALIGN=RIGHT for <P> or <H?> either, so I don't even think you
>can hack it d:)
In fact, it doesn't support any form of align for <P> (in version 1.1N
at least).
--
Christian Belisle cbel...@saglac.qc.ca
Jonquiere, Quebec http://saglac.qc.ca/cbelisle/home.html
Gordon K. Werner
wrote:
> In article <41vrol$g...@mars.earthlink.net>,
> dcp...@atlas.earthlink.net (dcpugh) wrote:
> >you think that was an ugly hack,
> >check out the code on http://www.earthlink.net/~xenovision/index.html
> >
> >now those are some serious tables...
>
> And yet I think it's the worst site I've seen. The only way to work out
where
> the links are is to trash the screen, the <blink> is exverywhere, the tables
> don't line up (even on Netscape 1.1N, which is what it's supposed to be
> optimised for), and the content is zero (there are even broken links).
>
The blinking stuff are the links
Gordon.
(I had no problem viewing it with netscape 1.1
Looked fine to me
--
Gordon Karel Werner
COMAIR CVG CSA
Martian
++On 24 Aug 1995 06:42:08 GMT, Big Dave Schmitt wrote:
++[...]
++>[...] Netscape also doesn't
++>implement ALIGN=RIGHT for <P> or <H?> either, so I don't even think you
++>can hack it d:)
++In fact, it doesn't support any form of align for <P> (in version 1.1N
++at least).
Netscpae 1.1 has support for <p align = left> and <p align = center>.
Abigail
Alf the Poet
[smip]
:Netscpae 1.1 has support for <p align = left> and <p align = center>.
But isn't this "support" for <p align=left> accidental, since it's the
default?
Just as an undocumented feature is really a bug, isn't supporting a feature
by accident not supporting it at all?
Heh. :-)
Alf
--
Alf the Poet <a...@epix.net>
http://www.epix.net/~alf/
PGP key fingerprint: 65 28 FE C8 67 B0 4E 9E 2B 7B 80 20 E5 AD CE AB
Christian Belisle
>Christian Belisle <cbel...@saglac.qc.ca> writes:
>> On 24 Aug 1995 06:42:08 GMT, Big Dave Schmitt wrote:
>>> [...] Netscape also doesn't
>>> implement ALIGN=RIGHT for <P> or <H?> either, so I don't even think you
>>> can hack it d:)
>> In fact, it doesn't support any form of align for <P> (in version 1.1N
>> at least).
>align=center works for me.
Well, then you don't use Netscape version 1.1N. I just got version 1.2N
and I will check that on it.
--
Christian Belisle
cbel...@saglac.qc.ca
James HG Redekop
>>align=center works for me.
It works for me, too, and when I hit "About Netscape..." it tells me that
I'm using 1.1N... In fact, I was using this, and <P ALIGN=CENTER> was
working, for quite a while before 1.2N was announced.
--
James H.G. Redekop tz...@csd.uwo.ca http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~tzoq/
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~tzoq/Residents/ RzWeb, The Residents' Website
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~tzoq/Goons/ The Goon Show Scripts
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~tzoq/HTML3/ Why HTML3 is preferable to Netscape
Michael Kelsey
|> On 07 Sep 1995 16:12:58 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
|>
|> >Christian Belisle <cbel...@saglac.qc.ca> writes:
|> >> On 24 Aug 1995 06:42:08 GMT, Big Dave Schmitt wrote:
|>
|> >>> [...] Netscape also doesn't
|> >>> implement ALIGN=RIGHT for <P> or <H?> either, so I don't even think you
|> >>> can hack it d:)
|>
|> >> In fact, it doesn't support any form of align for <P> (in version 1.1N
|> >> at least).
|>
|> >align=center works for me.
|>
|> Well, then you don't use Netscape version 1.1N. I just got version 1.2N
|> and I will check that on it.
I *do* use Netscape 1.1N for the X windowing system (IBM RS/6000) and the
ALIGN attribute, with _only_ the value CENTER, works just fine with headings
and with paragraphs. It does not work with tables, and it doesn't work with
other HTML 3 constructs for which ALIGN is a defined attribute. What is
more, Netscape's student programmers were apparently unable to implement
support for any of the other possible values for ALIGN (such as left, right,
or justify), focussing their attention instead on changing text colors and
blinking text.
Apparently you are not using Netscape 1.1N, or else there are variations
between different platforms.
MatthewK
> It works for me, too, and when I hit "About Netscape..." it tells me that
> I'm using 1.1N... In fact, I was using this, and <P ALIGN=CENTER> was
> working, for quite a while before 1.2N was announced.
Yeah, I just tried:
<P ALIGN=CENTER>WHAT'S NEW?...</p>
in Netscape 1.2N and it worked just fine. However it doesn`t recognise
<P ALIGN=RIGHT>WHAT'S NEW?...</p>
Which is a shame!
Regards,
MatthewK
MatthewK
James HG Redekop
Michael Kelsey <kel...@cithe501.cithep.caltech.edu> wrote:
>In article <DEs0w...@saglac.qc.ca>, cbel...@saglac.qc.ca (Christian Belisle) writes:
>|> On 07 Sep 1995 16:12:58 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>|> >align=center works for me.
>|> Well, then you don't use Netscape version 1.1N. I just got version 1.2N
>|> and I will check that on it.
>I *do* use Netscape 1.1N for the X windowing system (IBM RS/6000) and the
>ALIGN attribute, with _only_ the value CENTER, works just fine with headings
>and with paragraphs. It does not work with tables, and it doesn't work with
>other HTML 3 constructs for which ALIGN is a defined attribute.
Actually, it does work with <Hn> as well... But not <TABLE>.
>What is
>more, Netscape's student programmers were apparently unable to implement
>support for any of the other possible values for ALIGN (such as left, right,
>or justify), focussing their attention instead on changing text colors and
>blinking text.
Yup. Gotta go with the flash. And gotta go with implmenting *just* enough
stuff from the HTML 3 Internet Draft to get away with claiming that they
support HTML 3, even if they do get it wrong.
>Apparently you are not using Netscape 1.1N, or else there are variations
>between different platforms.
Oh, I'm using 1.1N, and I'm pretty sure Russ Albery is too. We can both read
the "about" page. Variations between platforms is much more likely -- device
independance has never been Netscape's strong suit.
Francois Brochu
>|> >>> [...] Netscape also doesn't
>|> >>> implement ALIGN=RIGHT for <P> or <H?> either, so I don't even think you
>|> >>> can hack it d:)
>|>
>|> >> In fact, it doesn't support any form of align for <P> (in version 1.1N
>|> >> at least).
>|>
>|>
>|> Well, then you don't use Netscape version 1.1N. I just got version 1.2N
>|> and I will check that on it.
>
>Apparently you are not using Netscape 1.1N, or else there are variations
>between different platforms.
> -- Mike Kelsey
>--
Yes there is a couple difference in Netscape rendering of the same page between the
16 bits and the 32 bits of the same version of MS-Windows
specially body BGCOLOR="708090"
Netscape 1.1n for Mac hang META="refresh"
not applicable Table width="80%"
I don't intent to raise heck but ....
Francois
Martian
++tz...@csd.uwo.ca (James HG Redekop) wrote:
++> It works for me, too, and when I hit "About Netscape..." it tells me that
++> I'm using 1.1N... In fact, I was using this, and <P ALIGN=CENTER> was
++> working, for quite a while before 1.2N was announced.
++Yeah, I just tried:
++<P ALIGN=CENTER>WHAT'S NEW?...</p>
++in Netscape 1.2N and it worked just fine. However it doesn`t recognise
++<P ALIGN=RIGHT>WHAT'S NEW?...</p>
++Which is a shame!
No, no, no! After all, they claim <center> is more general than the
alignment attribute. Now, if they would recognize align=right, they
would admit they were wrong.... So, they probably first come with
<right>, proudly announce that as the biggest thing since <center>,
and then in a next release quietly accept 'align=right' as well.
Abigail
Russ Allbery
> On 07 Sep 1995 16:12:58 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> align=center works for me.
> Well, then you don't use Netscape version 1.1N. I just got version 1.2N
> and I will check that on it.
Yes, I do use 1.1N, and <p align=center>text</p> works exactly like it's
supposed to. I've been using it for months.
Are you perhaps confused by the subject line and thought we were talking
about tables? I believe you were the one who changed the subject to <p>.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@www.gvg.tek.com) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/