Weird problem with table "padding"

I have designed a simulated "page" for a website (i.e. it looks like a
Word document or PDF), in the form of a table (see my mock-up at
http://tinyurl.com/2kbvr2). It displays as I want it to in Firefox,
Opera and Safari, but in IE the table cell in which all the content
goes (i.e. the part that is not part of the page design) displays as
if it had padding on the right - there is about a three quarters of an
inch gap between the right of the simulated "page" and the contents of
it (the text, tables etc.) I can't see anything in the html that could
be causing this to happen - any ideas anyone?

Dave

"Dave Rado" <dave.rado (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote

I have designed a simulated "page" for a website (i.e. it looks like a
Word document or PDF), in the form of a table (see my mock-up at
http://tinyurl.com/2kbvr2). It displays as I want it to in Firefox,
Opera and Safari, but in IE the table cell in which all the content
goes (i.e. the part that is not part of the page design) displays as
if it had padding on the right - there is about a three quarters of an
inch gap between the right of the simulated "page" and the contents of
it (the text, tables etc.) I can't see anything in the html that could
be causing this to happen - any ideas anyone?

Turn on table borders. 28 + 557 + 28 does not add up to 700. Browsers are
free to put the spare space where they will.

Why are you using tables to lay out content?

--
Richard.

On 27 Dec, 05:36, "rf" <r... (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:

"Dave Rado" <dave.r... (AT) dsl (DOT) pipex.com> wrote in message

Turn on table borders. 28 + 557 + 28 does not add up to 700. Browsers are
free to put the spare space where they will.

I don't know how the 557 width got in there. Removing that fixed it,
thanks.

Why are you using tables to lay out content?

--
Richard.

Can you think of any other way to get it to look *exactly* like my
mock-up, with a simulated "document page" that has a variable height
(depending on the content), but whose left and right borders
automatically look like they do in the mock-up however much content
you have in it? Background images in table cells are the only way I
know to do this, but I'm open to exploring a better way.

Dave

Dave Rado wrote:

On 27 Dec, 05:36, "rf" wrote:
"Dave Rado" wrote in message

Why are you using tables to lay out content?


Can you think of any other way to get it to look *exactly* like my
mock-up, with a simulated "document page" that has a variable height
(depending on the content), but whose left and right borders
automatically look like they do in the mock-up however much content
you have in it? Background images in table cells are the only way I
know to do this, but I'm open to exploring a better way.

I could have sworn we'd been through this already, but then, I'm getting
older everyday. I start to forget things. And I start to forget things.

Look at http://www.zugerfechtclub.ch/tests/DaveRado.htm for an example
of how one might do that. No images, no tables.

The "*exactly* like your mock-up" depends on which browser one uses to
view your mock-up and my proposal. Also, I don't know what *exactly*
you're aiming at with your mock-up.

I have regrettably used <div class="outer"> as an enveloping element,
since I don't know the purpose of your design. I guess I could have
called it "content", but you'll know that better than I.

The inner div is a div because I don't know what's supposed to be in
that box. If it's just a headline I'd use <h1> instead of <div> and
revise the CSS, for example.

Last but not at all least, it's a fixed-width design, in keeping with
your request, although I generally hate producing such things. I like
Web pages which match my browser's current configuration. If you really
think you need a page to match some printed broschure or paper document,
use PDF. Otherwise, try to accept the flexibility offered by the Web medium.

HTH

--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/

On 27 Dec, 07:50, John Hosking <J... (AT) DELETE (DOT) Hosking.name.INVALID>
wrote:

Dave Rado wrote:
On 27 Dec, 05:36, "rf" wrote:
"Dave Rado" wrote in message

Why are you using tables to lay out content?

Can you think of any other way to get it to look *exactly* like my
mock-up, with a simulated "document page" that has a variable height
(depending on the content), but whose left and right borders
automatically look like they do in the mock-up however much content
you have in it? Background images in table cells are the only way I
know to do this, but I'm open to exploring a better way.

I could have sworn we'd been through this already, but then, I'm getting
older everyday. I start to forget things. And I start to forget things.

Look athttp://www.zugerfechtclub.ch/tests/DaveRado.htmfor an example
of how one might do that. No images, no tables.

The "*exactly* like your mock-up" depends on which browser one uses to
view your mock-up and my proposal. Also, I don't know what *exactly*
you're aiming at with your mock-up.

I have regrettably used <div class="outer"> as an enveloping element,
since I don't know the purpose of your design. I guess I could have
called it "content", but you'll know that better than I.

The inner div is a div because I don't know what's supposed to be in
that box. If it's just a headline I'd use <h1> instead of <div> and
revise the CSS, for example.

Last but not at all least, it's a fixed-width design, in keeping with
your request, although I generally hate producing such things. I like
Web pages which match my browser's current configuration. If you really
think you need a page to match some printed broschure or paper document,
use PDF. Otherwise, try to accept the flexibility offered by the Web medium.

HTH

--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP:http://improve-usenet.org/

Thanks for the tips, John - it'll take me a few days to digest and to
compose a proper response, so please bear with me.

Dave

Dave Rado wrote:

Hi Jonathan

In the other thread I showed you a way, no tables and only one
container and no images to make you page. The example has a more
accessible flexible page size, but you can easily change that...

I posted here before I saw your post in the css thread,sorry about the
confusion - but I've replied there, and explained why I need fixed
width.

Didn't seem a very convincing argument.

--
Take care,

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

Hi Jonathan

On 28 Dec, 22:10, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4... (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

Dave Rado wrote:
Hi Jonathan
In the other thread I showed you a way, no tables and only one
container and no images to make you page. The example has a more
accessible flexible page size, but you can easily change that...
I posted here before I saw your post in the css thread,sorry about the
confusion - but I've replied there, and explained why I need fixed
width.

Didn't seem a very convincing argument.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIOhttp://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Please could you post your reasons in the css thread? I find it
confusing having a discussion with you in two threads simultaneously.

Dave

Dave Rado wrote:

Hi Jonathan

On 28 Dec, 22:10, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4... (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:
Dave Rado wrote:
Hi Jonathan
In the other thread I showed you a way, no tables and only one
container and no images to make you page. The example has a more
accessible flexible page size, but you can easily change that...
I posted here before I saw your post in the css thread,sorry about the
confusion - but I've replied there, and explained why I need fixed
width.

Please could you post your reasons in the css thread? I find it
confusing having a discussion with you in two threads simultaneously.

The problem with multi-posting, that is why GG'ers often get blasted for
doing it.

BTW, you do realize that you can style a document one way for display
and another for printing, i.e., fluid for the screen and fixed width for
printing.

--
Take care,

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

Dave Rado wrote:

On 27 Dec, 05:36, "rf" <r... (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:

Why are you using tables to lay out content?

Background images in table cells are the only way I
know to do this, but I'm open to exploring a better way.

How quickly they forget... I posted a better way more than a week ago.
http://www.bergamotus.ws/samples/daverado.html

--
Berg

soneogondrong (AT) gmail (DOT) com schreef:

mas ikutan ...

I hope that means Happy New Year