![]() | |
#21
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Jan 11, 4:26 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4... (AT) centralva (DOT) net wrote: NvrBst wrote: Ahh. Problem with the min-width would be my that it creates a vertical scroll (size of the largest width in *Data1*), when 99% of the time *Data1* is small -> would have to set it dynamically each time the data in *Data1* changes so that the scroll bar doesn't appear when its not needed (more work than its worth). Why would a *vertical* scroll be created to the *width* of anything?! From what you say and the meager scraps of what you show it seems that you have no idea what you are doing... The 3 table method, or the position absolute both work though so I'll fiddle around with those. So I would say, most likely you are wrong and it *can* be done, but since you are adamantly against providing a URL to what you are *trying* to do...well good luck with that! LOL Typo. Horizontal Scroll Bar. If you want to see it yourself set the min-width to 200em and you'll see the scroll bar. |
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
NvrBst wrote: On Jan 11, 4:26 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4... (AT) centralva (DOT) net wrote: NvrBst wrote: Ahh. Problem with the min-width would be my that it creates a vertical scroll (size of the largest width in *Data1*), when 99% of the time *Data1* is small -> would have to set it dynamically each time the data in *Data1* changes so that the scroll bar doesn't appear when its not needed (more work than its worth). Why would a *vertical* scroll be created to the *width* of anything?! *From what you say and the meager scraps of what you show it seems that you have no idea what you are doing... The 3 table method, or the position absolute both work though so I'll fiddle around with those. So I would say, most likely you are wrong and it *can* be done, but since you are adamantly against providing a URL to what you are *trying* * to do...well good luck with that! LOL Typo. *Horizontal Scroll Bar. *If you want to see it yourself set the min-width to 200em and you'll see the scroll bar. Of course! 200em is *extremely* wide! About 400 characters! Make is smaller as I said in the comment in the CSS style type="text/css" * */* use 'em' adjust for min width without wrapping */ * *body { min-width: 20em; overflow: auto; } Adjust the value to the min (minimum) needed to display without wrapping. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIOhttp://www.LittleWorksStudio.com- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |

#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
NvrBst wrote: .. Sometimes the cell needs to be 1000 pixels wide (rarly) to fit its content and sometimes 30 pixels wide. If that is true, there is a flaw in your design... -- * *-bts * *-Friends don't let friends drive Vista |
If the COM object, that populates the
#24
| |||
| |||
|
|
NvrBst wrote: "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote: NvrBst wrote: .. Sometimes the cell needs to be 1000 pixels wide (rarly) to fit its content and sometimes 30 pixels wide. If that is true, there is a flaw in your design... -- ( <-- please snip signatures beginning with this line ) Maybe *If the COM object, that populates theasp:ContentPlaceHolder, errors then it returns a single character "-". *99% of the time the data returned from the COM is 500-600px'ish but there are 1 or 2 larger data returns. Set your error handler to return something like a one-pixel transparent gif with a width parameter of .. 500-600px'ish width. What kind of 'data' is this that varies so much in width? -- * *-bts * *-Friends don't let friends drive Vista |
#25
| |||
| |||
|
#26
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Jan 13, 5:38 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" a.nony.m... (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote: ... |
|
Ahh, the data can get very wide because of the number columns returned. Some of the tables have thousands of cells (The site runs on an intranet so bandwidth isn't an issue). |
|
Anyway, baically the column headers usally go something like "Msg / X1 Acks / X2 Acks / X1 N-Acks / X2 N-Acks / Rty 1 / Rty 2 / ... / Rty N / Dup Msg / Dup Overlap / etc". |
#27
| |||
| |||
|
|
Scripsit NvrBst: On Jan 13, 5:38 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" a.nony.m... (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote: ... That pseudoquotation doesn't really give us much context, does it? Ahh, the data can get very wide because of the number columns returned. *Some of the tables have thousands of cells (The site runs on an intranet so bandwidth isn't an issue). Is meaningfulness an issue? What would anyone _do_ with such a table? This reminds me of the good old days when I worked in a computing centre where line printers were the main output device, and there was a researcher who printed out hundreds of pages about daily, picked up the listing, flipped over to a certain page, looked at a number and threw the listing away. He just couldn't be bothered to modify his output routines to print just the data he actually needed. Consider letting users select the data they need (typically, via a form on a web page). This means some hard work to some programmer(s), but once done, it saves a lot of labor and time. Anyway, baically the column headers usally go something like "Msg / X1 Acks / X2 Acks / X1 N-Acks / X2 N-Acks / Rty 1 / Rty 2 / ... / Rty N / Dup Msg / Dup Overlap / etc". Is this explanation supposed to help? -- Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ |
#28
| |||
| |||
|
|
NvrBst wrote: "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote: Scripsit NvrBst: ... That pseudoquotation doesn't really give us much context, does it? Anyway, baically the column headers usally go something like "Msg / X1 Acks / X2 Acks / X1 N-Acks / X2 N-Acks / Rty 1 / Rty 2 / ... / Rty N / Dup Msg / Dup Overlap / etc". Is this explanation supposed to help? -- Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ LOL I did the pseudoquotation because I thought that you thought the quotes were getting to long ("Don't forget to snip sig lines"). ..so why didn't you snip it? Anyway, as I said, I don't see how the column headers are relevant. 1000px isn't that wide and when you have many columns its easy to have 1000px width tables (the explanation was to illustrate the number of columns). Initially, you were talking about 1000px *cells*, not tables. A table that wide isn't necessarily a problem. "As stated already the *Data1* cells' content changes. *Sometimes the cell needs to be 1000 pixels wide (rarly) to fit its content and sometimes 30 pixels wide." Make up your mind. -- * *-bts * *-Friends don't let friends drive Vista- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#29
| |||
| |||
|
|
LOL |
|
The *Data1* cell is getting the table (from the COM) put into it. Inital table is 2x2 table (Menu in left colum, and Data1/Data2 in right colum). Data1 Cell = 1000px'ish at time. |
|
And I did snip his post. |
#30
| |||
| |||
|
|
Scripsit NvrBst: LOL You're not even funny. The *Data1* cell is getting the table (from the COM) put into it. Inital table is 2x2 table (Menu in left colum, and Data1/Data2 in right colum). *Data1 Cell = 1000px'ish at time. Doesn't make much more sense than the rest of your postings. You might have tried to tell something relevant by posting a URL, but you didn't. And I did snip his post. Unless you intentionally wish to look like a moron, learn how to quote on Usenet. Please do not change your foolish "nickname" before that. Thank you in advance. -- Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |