Why page does not resize?
Terry Pinnell
widths, rather than pixel-based. Could someone kindly take a look at
http://www.cupod-mentoring.com/claverham.htm
and see if they can spot why it does not resize please? Viewed at
640x480, I expected to see some cells get narrower, if necessary with
text word-wrap. But not so. I've specified every cell using
percentages, and cells in all rows add up to 100%. For example,
looking along the cells from left to right alongside that first block
of text (the one with bullets), I have:
Left navigation column: 15%
Empty gap: 10%
Main text: 65%
Another gap: 10%
TOTAL 100% (also = table size)
--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Richard Watson
> I'm experimenting (on my first web design) with percentage-based table
> widths, rather than pixel-based.
Why not make the switch to a nice css layout?
> Could someone kindly take a look at
> http://www.cupod-mentoring.com/claverham.htm
> and see if they can spot why it does not resize please? Viewed at
> 640x480, I expected to see some cells get narrower,
The point is that your snazzy underline rule is a wide image that
isn't going to get compressed by the table.
Consider using a <div> with a an image as its background instead.
--
Richard Watson
Andy Mabbett
<terr...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>I'm experimenting (on my first web design) with percentage-based table
>widths, rather than pixel-based. Could someone kindly take a look at
>http://www.cupod-mentoring.com/claverham.htm and see if they can spot
>why it does not resize please?
You have (near the top of your HTML):
<td width="600" align="center" valign="middle" colspan="3">
You also have, bizarrely,:
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" height="1220" width="100%">
and:
<td width="15%" height="1042" valign="top" rowspan="6">
Why are you specifying those heights?
Also, validate your HTM at:
You might want to change FrontPage for a better HTML editor.
--
Andy Mabbett
Women are only able to visit Kuwait's stock exchange on a mezzanine floor
called the "Ladies Trading Floor". In Iraq, women can participate fully in the
surprisingly booming Baghdad stock exchange. Guardian 4 Feb 2003.
Geoff Berrow
Pinnell contained the following:
>Could someone kindly take a look at
>http://www.cupod-mentoring.com/claverham.htm
>and see if they can spot why it does not resize please?
acnvrule600-t.gif is one culprit. And you have some table rows set at
600 pixels too.
Also the bottom menu. If you fix everything, it scales.
--
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>You might want to change FrontPage for a better HTML editor.
That's the biggest problem. It loves to lock stuff down.
Geoff Berrow
Watson contained the following:
>> I'm experimenting (on my first web design) with percentage-based table
>> widths, rather than pixel-based.
>
>Why not make the switch to a nice css layout?
Because he's using Front Page.
Are any authoring packages capable of doing this easily?
Terry Pinnell
>Message-ID: <t1bl4vcln6vlp59no...@4ax.com> from Terry
>Pinnell contained the following:
>
>>Could someone kindly take a look at
>>http://www.cupod-mentoring.com/claverham.htm
>>and see if they can spot why it does not resize please?
>
>acnvrule600-t.gif is one culprit. And you have some table rows set at
>600 pixels too.
>
>Also the bottom menu. If you fix everything, it scales.
Thanks for all responses. Will get stuck into the more obvious points
tomorrow.
Richard/Andy: I'm in early stages of learning CSS. Not sure why that
would help me here? And would FP somehow obstruct a CSS
implementation?
--
Terry Pinnell, West Sussex, UK
Pete Gray
<terr...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>I'm experimenting (on my first web design) with percentage-based table
>widths, rather than pixel-based. Could someone kindly take a look at
>http://www.cupod-mentoring.com/claverham.htm
>and see if they can spot why it does not resize please? Viewed at
>640x480, I expected to see some cells get narrower, if necessary with
>text word-wrap. But not so. I've specified every cell using
>percentages, and cells in all rows add up to 100%. For example,
Actually, you/Front Page haven't done this. The first row has two
cells one of 15%, the other 600px. The next row has one of width 127
and one of 85%. And some of these cells have images in them whose
width is also defined (as it should be).
Mind you, you also have a nested table whose width is supposed to be
520, but contains one row of (empty) cells whose widths add up to 604,
and another that adds up to 693.
Perhaps you should simplify the design, as the code is a bit of a mess
at the moment? Some of the code has the look of the sort of thing
produced by Word's "Save as HTML". Is that the case?
--
Pete Gray
while ($cat!="home"){$mice=="play";}
Richard Watson
> Richard/Andy: I'm in early stages of learning CSS. Not sure why that
> would help me here? And would FP somehow obstruct a CSS
> implementation?
When you use CSS it makes your HTML so simple that to use something
like Frontpage with it is pointless (if it wasn't already).
You should only need to use HTML to describe the content of your
document. You then use CSS to say where it goes, what colour it is
etc.
--
Richard Watson
http://www.opencolo.com/
High Quality, Value for money colocation
Terry Pinnell
>Terry Pinnell <terr...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>
>> Richard/Andy: I'm in early stages of learning CSS. Not sure why that
>> would help me here? And would FP somehow obstruct a CSS
>> implementation?
>
>When you use CSS it makes your HTML so simple that to use something
>like Frontpage with it is pointless (if it wasn't already).
>
>You should only need to use HTML to describe the content of your
>document. You then use CSS to say where it goes, what colour it is
>etc.
Thanks, Richard. But how does CSS help me create the tables which seem
essential for layout? From my limited experiments so far, even the
simplest (and non-nested) tables are horrifically difficult, tedious
and error-prone to code by hand. In FP, they are easy.
Terry Pinnell
>Actually, you/Front Page haven't done this. The first row has two
>cells one of 15%, the other 600px. The next row has one of width 127
>and one of 85%. And some of these cells have images in them whose
>width is also defined (as it should be).
Thanks very much, Pete. Yes, as others have pointed out, I carelessly
overlooked the impact of those graphics.
>Mind you, you also have a nested table whose width is supposed to be
>520, but contains one row of (empty) cells whose widths add up to 604,
>and another that adds up to 693.
Well-spotted; must look into that. (I still find tables a quagmire -
just can't seem to reliably predict their behaviour. And studying the
official specs quickly gave me a headache!)
>Perhaps you should simplify the design, as the code is a bit of a mess
>at the moment? Some of the code has the look of the sort of thing
>produced by Word's "Save as HTML". Is that the case?
That's another interesting point, thank you. I actually received some
input from my client as a Word document (images plus text in what
looked like text boxes or single cell tables). I copied and pasted the
text into my FP table. I had no idea it would carry across 'Office'
coding. But, as you've spotted, it does (as searching the HTML for
'mso' confirms).
You're right about a cleaner approach, of course. I'm torn between two
motives. On the one hand I want to do just that (and learn more about
the fundamentals in the procees). But I also have a deadline, so I'm
being expedient!
Richard Watson
> Thanks, Richard. But how does CSS help me create the tables which seem
> essential for layout? From my limited experiments so far, even the
> simplest (and non-nested) tables are horrifically difficult, tedious
> and error-prone to code by hand. In FP, they are easy.
Unfortunately FP is hiding the true horror from you. It used to almost
be a rite of passage that every web author had to show their balls by
constructing a site by hand using tables at least nested 4 deep and
keep track of all the <td></td> pairs. Those days are pretty well
gone, thanks to css.
Have a look here:
http://thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/boxes.html
Pick one you like and see how it works.
Its not rocket science, but there are some gotchas thanks to buggy
browsers. Fortunately someone else put in the hard work ;-)
Terry Pinnell
>Unfortunately FP is hiding the true horror from you. It used to almost
>be a rite of passage that every web author had to show their balls by
>constructing a site by hand using tables at least nested 4 deep and
>keep track of all the <td></td> pairs. Those days are pretty well
>gone, thanks to css.
>
>Have a look here:
>
>http://thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/boxes.html
>
>Pick one you like and see how it works.
Thanks, I've just visited that site. But I guess this will have to
wait until I've mastered the lower CSS slopes, as I'm not at all clear
how I would 'see how it works' from my present skill level. For
example, even that 'one box' page defeats me. Presumably I should
paste from there? But what to paste? Presumably not just the lines
displayed on that page? If instead I click '[Full CSS]' two things
seem to happen:
1. Focus returns to FP
2. When I look at my text editor, I see it has loaded a new HTML file,
from FP's temporary storage.
I'm guessing I need a pre-prepared HTML 'blank' page in my text editor
before I paste something from this site into the right place on it.
But that means study and experiment, so it'll have to wait!
Terry Pinnell
>Message-ID: <873cmtz...@chromatica.doilywood.lan> from Richard
>Watson contained the following:
>
>>> I'm experimenting (on my first web design) with percentage-based table
>>> widths, rather than pixel-based.
>>
>>Why not make the switch to a nice css layout?
>
>Because he's using Front Page.
>
>Are any authoring packages capable of doing this easily?
Geoff: Could you clarify please? Do you mean 'capable of switching to
CSS'? Or 'capable of managing tables'? Or something else?
Terry Pinnell
>In message <t1bl4vcln6vlp59no...@4ax.com>, Terry Pinnell
><terr...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>>I'm experimenting (on my first web design) with percentage-based table
>>widths, rather than pixel-based. Could someone kindly take a look at
>>http://www.cupod-mentoring.com/claverham.htm and see if they can spot
>>why it does not resize please?
>
>You have (near the top of your HTML):
>
> <td width="600" align="center" valign="middle" colspan="3">
>
>You also have, bizarrely,:
>
> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" height="1220" width="100%">
>
>and:
>
> <td width="15%" height="1042" valign="top" rowspan="6">
>
>Why are you specifying those heights?
It's as Geoff said - I didn't explicitly do so. Presumably FP converts
to pixel-based specs whenever I drag a table cell (or graphic).
>Also, validate your HTM at:
>
> <http://validator.w3.org/>.
I'm deterred from doing that after my previous experience. Not only
was there little consensus (here and in the FP group) on what
constitutes a 'validator', but that and other utilities appeared to be
almost *too* rigorous. Many of the 'errors' (59 I recall) detected
were not substantiated by later different 'validators'. More
important, many remain (because I have found it too
difficult/time-consuming to correct them), yet the pages still look OK
(up to a point reflecting my novice status) in MSIE and NS. If anyone
wants background, see threads starting at:
Newsgroups: uk.net.web.authoring
Subject: Why does NS do this to my table?
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003
in this NG, and also
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.frontpage.client
Subject: Is FP really this bad?
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003
in the microsoft.public.frontpage.client NG
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.frontpage.client
Subject: What code is validated?
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003
>You might want to change FrontPage for a better HTML editor.
Recommendations? Based on what objective comparative assessments? It
would have to be a very significantly better one to warrant my doing
so after expense and time invested in FP already!
brucie
said...
> >You might want to change FrontPage for a better HTML editor.
> Recommendations?
if you must use a wysinwyg try IBM WebSphere Studio Homepage Builder
http://www-3.ibm.com/software/webservers/hpbuilder/ i've never known
the wysinwyg to spew out invalid html (although it does allow
proprietary extensions which are invalid)
> Based on what objective comparative assessments?
a few years ago I was looking for a wysinwyg so I downloaded every
wysinwyg I could find and tested each ones wysinwyg mode without
changing the default installed settings. I started with a valid html
document and made identical changes to it in each editor, such as adding
tables, deleting cells, adding paragraphs, moving stuff around etc etc.
just basic "putting a page together stuff". homepage builder was the
only editor that still had valid html when I had finished.
I remember frontpage was the worst of all by over doubling the amount of
markup and having over 100 markup errors.
> It would have to be a very significantly better one to warrant my doing
> so after expense and time invested in FP already!
I was only checking the editors wysinwyg mode, I didn't bother assessing
anything else the editor did or how it did it.
--
brucie
No one is listening until you make a mistake.
Terry Pinnell
Many thanks, that's solid stuff. I'm looking at the download page now.
Says it's 300 MB, although I assume that's a typo, as the Linux
version is 20 MB. But even 30 MB at 56Kbps is too much for me to
tackle at present!
brucie
said...
[IBM Homepage Builder]
> I'm looking at the download page now. Says it's 300 MB,
actually I think its over 350mb
> although I assume that's a typo,
so did I when I upgraded to V6 and had to send a quick email cancelling
the downloadable order and ordering the boxed version.
> as the Linux version is 20 MB.
that sounds about the size V5 was on windows.
if you email me your address i'll mail you an OEM V5 on CD which IBM
gave me for free after I pointed out some bugs with V4
Andy Mabbett
<terr...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>> <td width="15%" height="1042" valign="top" rowspan="6">
>>
>>Why are you specifying those heights?
>
>It's as Geoff said - I didn't explicitly do so. Presumably FP converts
>to pixel-based specs whenever I drag a table cell (or graphic).
Probably. It's shite.
>>Also, validate your HTM at:
>>
>> <http://validator.w3.org/>.
>
>I'm deterred from doing that after my previous experience. Not only was
>there little consensus (here and in the FP group) on what constitutes a
>'validator',
As anyone said that that site isn't?
>but that and other utilities appeared to be almost *too* rigorous.
How can it be so?
> Many of the 'errors' (59 I recall) detected were not substantiated by
>later different 'validators'.
Which 'validators' (the clue may lie in your use of quote marks).
> More important, many remain (because I have found it too
>difficult/time-consuming to correct them),
Do you want to write valid HTML, or not?
> yet the pages still look OK (up to a point reflecting my novice
>status) in MSIE and NS.
In every version, in every platform? Including the next to appear?
<http://html.about.com/library/weekly/aa092799.htm>
>>You might want to change FrontPage for a better HTML editor.
>
>Recommendations?
Notepad
Arachnophilia 4.0
> Based on what objective comparative assessments?
Based on experience
> It would have to be a very significantly better
It would be hard not to be.
>one to warrant my doing so after expense and time invested in FP
>already!
Then the longer you leave it, the harder it will be to change.
Andy Mabbett
<terr...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>Thanks, Richard. But how does CSS help me create the tables which seem
>essential for layout?
It will help you to create tables, where they are required, but they are
not required for layout [*] of anything other than tables of data.
>From my limited experiments so far, even the simplest (and non-nested)
>tables are horrifically difficult, tedious and error-prone to code by
>hand. In FP, they are easy.
and wrong.
[*] with caveats which need not trouble a novice
Jerry.
"Terry Pinnell" <terr...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:tekm4v04fa5saa09d...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>
> Thanks, Richard. But how does CSS help me create the tables which
seem
> essential for layout? From my limited experiments so far, even the
My I suggest another book for you Terry, having been down the same
road ?
HTML 4.01
Programer's Reference
Published by WROX
ISBN 1 - 861005 - 33 - 4
27.99 UKP
http://www.wrox.com/default.htm
I got my copy in WHSmiths
The above book has three chapters, which are easy to follow (ie. they
give code examples etc.), on CSS alone and explains all about how CSS
affects layout and positioning. Once you grasp how CSS works you won't
think that tables are needed for layout at all, you'll be using <div
class="XYZ">...</div> !! Anyway that is what I I'm finding anyway :~)
--
Jerry...
Location: West Sussex. United Kingdom.
Please reply to group, sorry, but ALL mail to this address is now
deleted at source.
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>In every version, in every platform? Including the next to appear?
He may well have his intended audience pretty well sussed. The law of
diminishing returns may apply.
Geoff Berrow
Pinnell contained the following:
>
>Geoff: Could you clarify please? Do you mean 'capable of switching to
>CSS'? Or 'capable of managing tables'? Or something else?
Capable of generating CSS in a WYSIWYG view.
Gazza
at news:lnkm4vk1aqgbv242l...@4ax.com, and shouted:
> Pete Gray <ne...@redbadge.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Perhaps you should simplify the design, as the code is a bit of a
>> mess at the moment? Some of the code has the look of the sort of
>> thing produced by Word's "Save as HTML". Is that the case?
> I copied and pasted the
> text into my FP table. I had no idea it would carry across 'Office'
> coding. But, as you've spotted, it does (as searching the HTML for
> 'mso' confirms).
The "Office coding" is bog-standard [1] XML, just with an mso namespace. It's
actually put in by Word so that if you ever wanted to turn the newly created .html
back into a .doc it could do so, as opposed to it being needed for the .html per se.
Although a mess to tidy up, the reduced filesize and easyness of editing/debugging is
well worth it. Either that, or create the .html from scratch (after the client has
stopped pestering you so much!)
[1] If there is such a thing :o)
Gazza
Andy Mabbett
<$b...@ckdog.co.uk> writes
>He may well have his intended audience pretty well sussed.
You think so:
Claverham is a Community College consisting of:
an 11-16 Comprehensive School of 1100 pupils
an Adult Education Centre for 2000 students
the Battle Area Sports Centre
the Battle Area Youth Service
a Work Place Nursery
?
Terry Pinnell
>My I suggest another book for you Terry, having been down the same
>road ?
>
> HTML 4.01
> Programer's Reference
>
> Published by WROX
> ISBN 1 - 861005 - 33 - 4
>
> 27.99 UKP
>
> http://www.wrox.com/default.htm
>
>I got my copy in WHSmiths
>
>The above book has three chapters, which are easy to follow (ie. they
>give code examples etc.), on CSS alone and explains all about how CSS
>affects layout and positioning. Once you grasp how CSS works you won't
>think that tables are needed for layout at all, you'll be using <div
>class="XYZ">...</div> !! Anyway that is what I I'm finding anyway :~)
Thanks, Jerry, I'll get it. But one of my key problems is *reading*
all that i do have. That includes a both Castro's 'HTML for the WWW'
and O'Reilly's 'Web Design in a Nutshell'.
Terry Pinnell
>The "Office coding" is bog-standard [1] XML, just with an mso namespace. It's
>actually put in by Word so that if you ever wanted to turn the newly created .html
>back into a .doc it could do so, as opposed to it being needed for the .html per se.
>Although a mess to tidy up, the reduced filesize and easyness of editing/debugging is
>well worth it. Either that, or create the .html from scratch (after the client has
>stopped pestering you so much!)
>
>[1] If there is such a thing :o)
Thanks, Gazza. I cleared it out - FP's code is already hard enough for
a novice to follow!
Richard Watson
>>http://thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/boxes.html
> 1. Focus returns to FP
> 2. When I look at my text editor, I see it has loaded a new HTML file,
> from FP's temporary storage.
Well when I first played with it I saved the html file (which is not
very big) and made a blank css file into which I pasted the "full css"
from the site.
Pete Gray
<ga...@garyjones.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>The "Office coding" is bog-standard [1] XML, just with an mso namespace. It's
>actually put in by Word so that if you ever wanted to turn the newly created .html
>back into a .doc it could do so, as opposed to it being needed for the .html per se.
MS provide HTML Filter, a downloadable tool to automatically strip out
the additional code. I've never actually used it, mind you, so I don't
know how good a job it does, but it might make a good start at least.
>Although a mess to tidy up, the reduced filesize and easyness of editing/debugging is
>well worth it. Either that, or create the .html from scratch (after the client has
>stopped pestering you so much!)
>
This is generally easier. And gives you heaps of code you understand
that you can copy/paste and re-use later.
Terry Pinnell
Thanks, Pete. I tried HTML Filter a while ago, on something else, and
got into a mess. I lost my line separators, and various other odd
entries appeared in the code, such as the appararently unknown tag
'<o>' (Although maybe I didn't use it correctly.)
For the current task, I found the best approach was the one I
understood the most clearly. I deleted all the Office stuff, and
pasted in from my text editor (into which I'd copied from Word via
clipboard).
Terry Pinnell
>if you email me your address i'll mail you an OEM V5 on CD which IBM
>gave me for free after I pointed out some bugs with V4
[E-mail reply earlier today bounced]
=================================
Brucie,
Many thanks, IBM Homepage Builder CD arrived in this morning's post.
As soon as I get finished with the project I'm on, I'm looking forward
to installing and playing with it.
Very kind of you to take the trouble - much appreciated.
brucie
said...
> >if you email me your address i'll mail you an OEM V5 on CD which IBM
> >gave me for free after I pointed out some bugs with V4
> [E-mail reply earlier today bounced]
sorry, I change it whenever the spam level gets intolerable
> Many thanks, IBM Homepage Builder CD arrived in this morning's post.
that was fast
> Very kind of you to take the trouble - much appreciated.
any time
--
brucie