Re: Table 100% H and W

Murray *TMM* wrote:

Not good enough. The problem is what constitutes 100% height when the table
extends beyond the bottom margin of the viewport.

What constitutes 100% *WIDTH* when the table extends beyond the right
margin of the viewport? nothing. It's over-ruled. Percent sizes are
over-ruled by defined sizes or content when they reach such size or when
content needs the space. No logical difference between width and height
for that matter.

Like I said - I think it's unlikely that you will see this added....

Send your comments to the W3C, please.... 8)

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================

"seb" <sebnewyork (AT) earhlink (DOT) netTakeThisOut> wrote

Murray *TMM* wrote:

Not good enough. The problem is what constitutes 100% height when the
table
extends beyond the bottom margin of the viewport.

What constitutes 100% *WIDTH* when the table extends beyond the right
margin of the viewport? nothing. It's over-ruled. Percent sizes are
over-ruled by defined sizes or content when they reach such size or when
content needs the space. No logical difference between width and height
for that matter.


Like I said - I think it's unlikely that you will see this added....

Murray *TMM* wrote:

Not good enough. The problem is what constitutes 100% height when the table
extends beyond the bottom margin of the viewport.

Like I said - I think it's unlikely that you will see this added....

Another reason is that the W3C is in the process of removing or
deprecating any table attributes that make them useful as layout structures.

--
James M. Shook
http://www.jshook.com

Like what?

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver MX
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver - THE BEST WAY TO GET
ANSWERS
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================

"James Shook" <jshook (AT) dont_mail (DOT) com> wrote

Murray *TMM* wrote:

Not good enough. The problem is what constitutes 100% height when the
table
extends beyond the bottom margin of the viewport.

Like I said - I think it's unlikely that you will see this added....

Another reason is that the W3C is in the process of removing or
deprecating any table attributes that make them useful as layout
structures.

--
James M. Shook
http://www.jshook.com

they'll do anything to keep people busy.
I bet they make big money out of web developpment themselves and it's in
their interest to make things more complicated than they could be, so
that "web developpers" keep their premium status as highly specialised
professionals.
haha.
That might not be entirely true (only 80% true), but what's for sure, is
that their goal is NOT to make it simpler and more accessible or to
democratise the process, which I thought, 5 years ago, was the whole
purpose of the internet and the admirable simplicity of html.
Too bad! another ideal that crumbles.

James Shook wrote:

Murray *TMM* wrote:

Not good enough. The problem is what constitutes 100% height when the
table
extends beyond the bottom margin of the viewport.

Like I said - I think it's unlikely that you will see this added....


Another reason is that the W3C is in the process of removing or
deprecating any table attributes that make them useful as layout
structures.

"James Shook" <jshook (AT) dont_mail (DOT) com> wrote

Murray *TMM* wrote:

Not good enough. The problem is what constitutes 100% height when the
table
extends beyond the bottom margin of the viewport.

Like I said - I think it's unlikely that you will see this added....

Another reason is that the W3C is in the process of removing or
deprecating any table attributes that make them useful as layout
structures.

I don't like the sound of that ... :-(

Nadia

Murray *TMM* wrote:

It's not likely, since there is no agreement on what 100% means.

I'm pretty sure everyone understands what 100% height means: the same as
100% width. I dislike IE strongly, but have to give them this: they're
using it and it works just fine. If W3C wanted, they would make the
height attribute valid code faster than a gif shim loads. But I don't
think they want to, and the question is why.

It works flawlessly in IE and has for many, many years. It doesn't take
a regiment of rocket scientists to make the browsers render the
attribute (proof: Microsoft did it. :-) ). Why, then?

Methink they don't have consensus because a minority of the W3C members
simply hate to admit that MS has done something right.

Hopefully, it'll change soon....

--
Dan Vendel - *GOF*
Contact: http://www.proformica.com/en/contact.shtml
Formmail tutorial: http://www.proformica.com/en/formmail_tutorial.shtml
Nested tables: http://www.proformica.com/en/nested_table_demo.shtml
SEO: http://www.proformica.com/en/search_engine_optimization.shtml
SE Utility: http://www.proformica.com/en/advanced_web_ranking.shtml
Search Dreamweaver newsgroup: http://www.proformica.com/google.html

nothing to do with MS or IE.
All browsers in quirks mode know what 100% height means.
That's how simple it is.
As to why the W3C doesn't want to, see my previous post.

Dan Vendel *GOF* wrote:

Murray *TMM* wrote:

It's not likely, since there is no agreement on what 100% means.


I'm pretty sure everyone understands what 100% height means: the same as
100% width. I dislike IE strongly, but have to give them this: they're
using it and it works just fine. If W3C wanted, they would make the
height attribute valid code faster than a gif shim loads. But I don't
think they want to, and the question is why.

It works flawlessly in IE and has for many, many years. It doesn't take
a regiment of rocket scientists to make the browsers render the
attribute (proof: Microsoft did it. :-) ). Why, then?

Methink they don't have consensus because a minority of the W3C members
simply hate to admit that MS has done something right.

Hopefully, it'll change soon....

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:41:12 -0400, seb
<sebnewyork (AT) earhlink (DOT) netTakeThisOut> wrote:

As to why the W3C doesn't want to, see my previous post.

Complaining about the situation here serves no purpose. The situation is
what it is. If you want to see it change, try
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Contact.

Just remember that, even if it were changed today, it would be years
before you could reasonably expect good cross-browser support for it.
You can make a decision regarding how you want to design your pages.
When giving advice here, I would suggest that you try to explain the
benefits and drawbacks of relying on quirks mode to render pages.

That said, the problem is not that browsers ignore the invalid HEIGHT
attribute, even in standards mode. The problem is that browsers do not
expand the HTML and BODY tags to fill the entire vertical viewport of
the browser. The HTML and BODY elements in most browsers, much like
tables, only expand to contain what is put into them. Thus, when you use
100% height on a table, it is calculated as 100% of its containing
element (HTML and BODY), which may or may not be as high as the browser
viewport. THAT is why you don't get the expected results when using 100%
height in a table.

If you'd like to try a little experiment, and I've posted this here many
times, try adding the following CSS to a page:

html, body{height:100%}

Then assign 100% height to a table in the page. From the testing I've
done and from reports here, it works in all browsers except for one of
the Mac versions.


Gary

If you'd like to try a little experiment, and I've posted this here many
times, try adding the following CSS to a page:

html, body{height:100%}

Then assign 100% height to a table in the page. From the testing I've
done and from reports here, it works in all browsers...

I don't know why you wrote so much in your post Gary, the above is all you had
to say because that's what makes you the man of the hour! It works great, even
in standards mode. Matter of fact, I cannot get it to NOT work! LOL

This is why I love Forums, you get a million people telling you "it cannot be
done" until the right person logs on and WHAM! - gives you the answer you've
been searching for all along.

Thanks again Gary for a simple solution to a big problem.