FF bug? Style on able columns

"GTalbot" <newsgroup (AT) gtalbot (DOT) org> wrote

On 9 déc, 05:46, GTalbot <newsgr... (AT) gtalbot (DOT) org> wrote:

.three {
border: 1px solid black ;

}

Your col class="three" should have a border though... Not sure why it
does not in Firefox 2.0.0.11, Opera 9.50 and Safari 3.0.4.

Got it!
"Border: The various border properties apply to columns only if
'border-collapse' is set to 'collapse' on the table element. In that
case, borders set on columns and column groups are input to the
conflict resolution algorithm that selects the border styles at every
cell edge." CSS 2.1, Section 17.3 Columns
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html#columns

and

C.2.119 Section 17.6 Borders

"Several popular browsers assume an initial value for 'border-
collapse' of 'separate' rather than 'collapse' or exhibit behavior
that is close to that value, even if they do not actually implement
the CSS table model. 'Separate' is now the initial value."

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html#q126

and in your code, the table had the default border-collapse: separate.

Regards,

Gérard

Gérard,

Ah, yes. I've read the border-collapse stuff many times, each of which has
resulted in my eyes to glazing over...

And with that applied....it doesn't do what I wanted anyway. I wanted EACH
CELL in that column to have a border, but specifying a border on <col> puts
the border around...the entire column (imagine!). So I need to go to
adjacent sibling for that anyway.

Thanks again,
Chris Beall

In article <uaX6j.52465$eY.6518 (AT) newssvr13 (DOT) news.prodigy.net>,
"Chris Beall" <Chris_Beall (AT) prodigy (DOT) net> wrote:

"dorayme"
"Chris Beall" <Chris_Beall (AT) prodigy (DOT) net> wrote:

I'm trying to apply style to a table column by specifying a class on a
col


I think col should be used in a *colgroup* to be strict. But even
so, there is not reliable browser support for things that you
would think would work well, like background colours. If you try
background on your col you will see it will work in FF but it is
totally without effect in my Safari (Mac and version 2.04).

dorayme,

COLGROUP is optional in many cases, including this one. I did try adding
it, but it had no impact, for the reasons described in GTalbot's post below.

I was not suggesting it would make a difference (in fact I knew
it would not because I tried it!)

Looks like I was misled by

http://www.htmldog.com/reference/htmltags/col/

------

It is almost comical that one has to remember to use

table {border-collapse: collapse;}

if one wants the border to appear in the good modern browsers. (I
got this from some url you investigated... so thanks for this bit
of esoterica <g>)

(Just btw, your original url shows a border where you wanted it
on the third column in *Mac IE 5* Yes, I know, this is a mere
curiosity as it is not used much any more)

It needs to be said every now and again that much more often than
not, it pays to be very simple in tooling up, to do a lot with a
little. That means biting the bullet and playing a straight bat
and classing the cells you want and be done. It is pretty easy to
do with a modern text editor and with the help of F & R
techniques.

--
dorayme

Chris Beall wrote:

Actually, the FF DOM inspector does show the COL element, but it has no
decendants, which is a first indication of why there are restrictions on
which cell styles it can influence. See the excellent comments below for
more information.

It does but it does not "contain" any TDs or THs.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote

In article <uaX6j.52465$eY.6518 (AT) newssvr13 (DOT) news.prodigy.net>,
"Chris Beall" <Chris_Beall (AT) prodigy (DOT) net> wrote:

"dorayme"
"Chris Beall" <Chris_Beall (AT) prodigy (DOT) net> wrote:

I'm trying to apply style to a table column by specifying a class on
a
col


I think col should be used in a *colgroup* to be strict. But even
so, there is not reliable browser support for things that you
would think would work well, like background colours. If you try
background on your col you will see it will work in FF but it is
totally without effect in my Safari (Mac and version 2.04).

dorayme,

COLGROUP is optional in many cases, including this one. I did try
adding
it, but it had no impact, for the reasons described in GTalbot's post
below.

I was not suggesting it would make a difference (in fact I knew
it would not because I tried it!)

Looks like I was misled by

http://www.htmldog.com/reference/htmltags/col/

------

It is almost comical that one has to remember to use

table {border-collapse: collapse;}

if one wants the border to appear in the good modern browsers. (I
got this from some url you investigated... so thanks for this bit
of esoterica <g>)

(Just btw, your original url shows a border where you wanted it
on the third column in *Mac IE 5* Yes, I know, this is a mere
curiosity as it is not used much any more)

It needs to be said every now and again that much more often than
not, it pays to be very simple in tooling up, to do a lot with a
little. That means biting the bullet and playing a straight bat
and classing the cells you want and be done. It is pretty easy to
do with a modern text editor and with the help of F & R
techniques.

--
dorayme

dorayme,

I certainly agree with your last bit. In fact, because I have many cases of
rowspan and colspan > 1, it seem to be the only way to go. Too much
variation row-to-row for anything else to be practical. A positive side
effect is that the HTML becomes somewhat self-documenting.

Cheers,
Chris Beall

Chris Beall wrote:

I certainly agree with your last bit. In fact, because I have many cases of
rowspan and colspan > 1, it seem to be the only way to go. Too much
variation row-to-row for anything else to be practical.

Hmmm, why so many rowspans and colspans? When I see such it usually
means on of two things

1) Using tables for layout.

2) Using one mega-table for multiple tables.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote

Chris Beall wrote:

I certainly agree with your last bit. In fact, because I have many
cases of
rowspan and colspan > 1, it seem to be the only way to go. Too much
variation row-to-row for anything else to be practical.

Hmmm, why so many rowspans and colspans? When I see such it usually
means on of two things

1) Using tables for layout.

2) Using one mega-table for multiple tables.
Jonathan,

Ha! In this case it means BOTH. :-)

But I think addressing (2) may actually address my difficulty. Nested
tables should do it.

[What, you wonder, is this doofus trying to do? Answer: Graphically (but
without images)represent a street, with buildings on both sides. Each
building has an address. Inside each building are one or more named
businesses. Some buildings contain no business and therefore are not shown
but the land on which they sit occupies space. Sometimes address 102 is
across the street from 101, but at other times 137 is across the street from
122, a relationship that is meaningful to the user ("Joe's bar is across
from the hardware store"). There are cross streets. Some streets run
predominantly North-South, others East-West, others wind around. Above all,
this is an amusement and not to be taken too seriously.]

Chris Beall

Chris Beall

Chris Beall wrote:

"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:7e3ee$475d4f6c$40cba7bb$23939 (AT) NAXS (DOT) COM...
Chris Beall wrote:

I certainly agree with your last bit. In fact, because I have many
cases of
rowspan and colspan > 1, it seem to be the only way to go. Too much
variation row-to-row for anything else to be practical.
Hmmm, why so many rowspans and colspans? When I see such it usually
means on of two things

1) Using tables for layout.

2) Using one mega-table for multiple tables.
Jonathan,

Ha! In this case it means BOTH. :-)

But I think addressing (2) may actually address my difficulty. Nested
tables should do it.

[What, you wonder, is this doofus trying to do? Answer: Graphically (but
without images)represent a street, with buildings on both sides. Each
building has an address. Inside each building are one or more named
businesses. Some buildings contain no business and therefore are not shown
but the land on which they sit occupies space. Sometimes address 102 is
across the street from 101, but at other times 137 is across the street from
122, a relationship that is meaningful to the user ("Joe's bar is across
from the hardware store"). There are cross streets. Some streets run
predominantly North-South, others East-West, others wind around. Above all,
this is an amusement and not to be taken too seriously.]

From your description I think your is approach is wrong on both
accounts. Of course a URL to your actual efforts so far would be helpful.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote

(snip)

Hmmm, why so many rowspans and colspans? When I see such it usually
means on of two things

1) Using tables for layout.

2) Using one mega-table for multiple tables.
Jonathan,

Ha! In this case it means BOTH. :-)

But I think addressing (2) may actually address my difficulty. Nested
tables should do it.

[What, you wonder, is this doofus trying to do? Answer: Graphically
(but
without images)represent a street, with buildings on both sides. Each
building has an address. Inside each building are one or more named
businesses. Some buildings contain no business and therefore are not
shown
but the land on which they sit occupies space. Sometimes address 102 is
across the street from 101, but at other times 137 is across the street
from
122, a relationship that is meaningful to the user ("Joe's bar is across
from the hardware store"). There are cross streets. Some streets run
predominantly North-South, others East-West, others wind around. Above
all,
this is an amusement and not to be taken too seriously.]



From your description I think your is approach is wrong on both
accounts. Of course a URL to your actual efforts so far would be helpful.

Jonathan,

There is a good chance you are correct...

http://pages.prodigy.net/chris_beall/sandbox/PdPN.html

Note that this is the equivalent of a conceptual sketch on a napkin, not
approaching anything finished. As I play with things, I run up against two
challenges:
1. What I can physically DO with HTML (and CSS).
2. What logical representation of the street seems natural.

The URL above shows a North-South street. If you click on the link to Kit
Carson Road, you will see one attempt at an East-West street. I have not
convinced myself that this compass-oriented presentation is the best one. I
also have not convinced my wife...

Chris Beall