Cellpadding et al

There doesn't seem to be a way to put cellpadding into the css file - Is
this true?

--
TTFN
Jim

There is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole.
-- Murphy's Military Laws, #25

On 2009-06-26, Barely Audible <somewhere (AT) overthe (DOT) rainbow.com> wrote:

There doesn't seem to be a way to put cellpadding into the css file - Is
this true?

You just use padding on td, it's the same.

Barely Audible wrote on 26 jun 2009 in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

There doesn't seem to be a way to put cellpadding into the css file - Is
this true?

TD {padding:2px;}

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Ben C wrote:

On 2009-06-26, Barely Audible <somewhere (AT) overthe (DOT) rainbow.com> wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a way to put cellpadding into the css file
- Is this true?

You just use padding on td, it's the same.

Not quite. The cellpadding attribute in HTML sets padding on th elements,
too (but oddly enough not on caption elements).

CSS is of course much more flexible, as you can e.g. set vertical padding as
different from horizontal padding. The HTML attribute always affects padding
in all directions the same way.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Evertjan."
<exjxw.hannivoort (AT) interxnl (DOT) net> writing in
news:Xns9C36B8F395B62eejj99 (AT) 194 (DOT) 109.133.242:

Barely Audible wrote on 26 jun 2009 in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

There doesn't seem to be a way to put cellpadding into the css file -
Is this true?

TD {padding:2px;}

I think that a unit of em or percentage would be better because it would be
relative to the font, assuming that the font size was expressed in ems or
percentages.


--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

On 2009-06-27, Adrienne Boswell <arbpen (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Evertjan."
exjxw.hannivoort (AT) interxnl (DOT) net> writing in
news:Xns9C36B8F395B62eejj99 (AT) 194 (DOT) 109.133.242:

Barely Audible wrote on 26 jun 2009 in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

There doesn't seem to be a way to put cellpadding into the css file -
Is this true?

TD {padding:2px;}


I think that a unit of em or percentage would be better because it would be
relative to the font, assuming that the font size was expressed in ems or
percentages.

You don't always want things like borders and padding to scale with the
font. People who bump the font up to read the text aren't reading the
borders and padding, and making them grow just means even less room for
the text.

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Ben C <spamspam (AT) spam (DOT) eggs>
writing in news:slrnh4d0l5.5rr.spamspam (AT) bowser (DOT) marioworld:

On 2009-06-27, Adrienne Boswell <arbpen (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Evertjan."
exjxw.hannivoort (AT) interxnl (DOT) net> writing in
news:Xns9C36B8F395B62eejj99 (AT) 194 (DOT) 109.133.242:

Barely Audible wrote on 26 jun 2009 in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

There doesn't seem to be a way to put cellpadding into the css file
- Is this true?

TD {padding:2px;}


I think that a unit of em or percentage would be better because it
would be relative to the font, assuming that the font size was
expressed in ems or percentages.

You don't always want things like borders and padding to scale with
the font. People who bump the font up to read the text aren't reading
the borders and padding, and making them grow just means even less
room for the text.

I agree with you about borders, but I think I would want padding to
shrink/grow as well.

I put up a test page:
[http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info/usenet/pixelem.html]

I was surprised that IE8 _still_ does not resize font sizes in pixels.
I would have thought that would be something they would have fixed (who
knows, maybe Microsoft doesn't think that _needs_ to be fixed).

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Adrienne Boswell wrote:

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Ben C <spamspam (AT) spam (DOT) eggs
writing in news:slrnh4d0l5.5rr.spamspam (AT) bowser (DOT) marioworld:
[...]
You don't always want things like borders and padding to scale with
the font. People who bump the font up to read the text aren't reading
the borders and padding, and making them grow just means even less
room for the text.

I agree with you about borders,

I don't. If font size is increased, keeping border width the same, you will
sooner or later end up with something rather ridiculous: boxed text with box
border that looks thin and fragile.

but I think I would want padding to
shrink/grow as well.

For similar reasons, yes. This becomes more obvious if you consider text
with ascenders, descenders, and diacritic marks. While a padding of 1px or
2px might be sufficient when text is in small size, it's disproportionate
for large text sizes. Even if, say, the acute accent of "É" does not touch
the top border when there is a 1px top padding, it very much looks like it
does when the font size is very large.

Demo page: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/test/pxem.html

I was surprised that IE8 _still_ does not resize font sizes in pixels.
I would have thought that would be something they would have fixed
(who knows, maybe Microsoft doesn't think that _needs_ to be fixed).

If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

When font size is specified in pixels, it shall be implemented in pixels.
The CSS specifications are clear on this. It's OK to let users override
author stylesheets in different ways, but taking a font size declaration in
an author stylesheet and "interpreting" it as meaning something completely
different is just wrong.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

In article <GwE1m.17970$vi5.12869 (AT) uutiset (DOT) elisa.fi>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> wrote:

Adrienne Boswell wrote:

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Ben C <spamspam (AT) spam (DOT) eggs
writing in news:slrnh4d0l5.5rr.spamspam (AT) bowser (DOT) marioworld:
[...]
You don't always want things like borders and padding to scale with
the font. People who bump the font up to read the text aren't reading
the borders and padding, and making them grow just means even less
room for the text.

I agree with you about borders,

I don't. If font size is increased, keeping border width the same, you will
sooner or later end up with something rather ridiculous: boxed text with box
border that looks thin and fragile.

Yes, certainly later and ideally, the aesthetics will suffer unless
borders scale a little. In practical terms, though, I think Ben is
mainly right. Mainly? Where screen space is scarce - when is it not? -
it is practical to not let the borders grow as much as aesthetics would
dictate.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

Yes, certainly later and ideally, the aesthetics will suffer unless
borders scale a little.

I don't see how they could scale a little. You can set them in metric units
(or in units defined in terms of metric units: in or pt), or in pixels, or
as relative to the font size (em or %). In the last case, they fully scale
according to the font size, naturally rounded to pixels ultimately. In the
other cases, they do not depend at all on the font size.

In practical terms, though, I think Ben is
mainly right. Mainly? Where screen space is scarce - when is it not? -
it is practical to not let the borders grow as much as aesthetics
would dictate.

That's not practical at all.

If you set border width or padding to, say, 0.07em instead of 1px, then it
will be 1px is most browsing situations, 2px for fairly large fonts, and
larger than that in special situations only - such as for a visually
impaired user who needs a font size like 40pt, and then the few pixels
"loss" really doesn't matter. It is then much more important how much of the
textual content fits in the browser window.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/