php-general Digest 18 May 2009 03:05:44 -0000 Issue 6127
Topics (messages 292699 through 292721):
SQL help?
292699 by: Skip Evans
Re: CSS & tables
292700 by: tedd
292701 by: Tom Worster
292702 by: tedd
292703 by: Tom Worster
292704 by: tedd
292705 by: tedd
292706 by: tedd
292707 by: tedd
292708 by: tedd
292710 by: Nathan Rixham
292711 by: Nathan Rixham
292712 by: Nathan Rixham
292713 by: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
292714 by: Stephen
292715 by: Paul M Foster
292716 by: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
292717 by: Nathan Rixham
292718 by: Daniele Grillenzoni
292719 by: HallMarc Websites
292720 by: Paul M Foster
292721 by: Nathan Rixham
Re: Shopping Cart
292709 by: tedd
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[email protected]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Begin Message ---
Hey all,
I have a SQL requirement I'm not quite sure how to compose.
I have two tables, shows, and shows_dates. It's a one to many
relationship where there is a single entry in shows and
multiple entries in shows_dates that list each date and time
for a play production for a run of entries in shows, like
I need a query that will read each record in shows, but I only
want the first record from shows_dates, the first one sorted
by date, so I can display all shows in order of their opening
date.
Not sure how to grab just the first record from shows_dates
though.
Hint, anyone?
Thanks,
Skip
--
====================================
Skip Evans
Big Sky Penguin, LLC
503 S Baldwin St, #1
Madison WI 53703
608.250.2720
http://bigskypenguin.com
------------------------------------
Those of you who believe in
telekinesis, raise my hand.
-- Kurt Vonnegut
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 2:34 PM -0400 5/15/09, Robert Cummings wrote:
It is my opinion that browsers do not yet provided the necessary
functionality across a large enough user spectrum to facilitate the
versatility of layouts used by many sites today. That said, I place most
of the blame squarely on Microsoft.
Cheers,
Rob.
Rob:
I saw your post and wanted to comment, but there are several reasons
why I didn't. Some of them are:
1. I agree that the table issue is not yet resolved. I agree that M$
is the biggest problem that all technologies of the day have to
overcome. First you have to solve the problem for the dumbest people
on the planet and then you have to solve it so that M$ products will
continue to work -- it's one of those dumber-dumbest things.
With regard to css, I oscillate between being a "css purist" to a
"css pragmatist".
On one hand I completely agree with the purist that tables in the
past have been abused and the disabled have been hurt by it -- that's
more than ample foundation in my book for the purist position.
On the other hand, there are the reasons you cite where tables have
not been universally accepted and defined by different browser
developers (M$ specifically). As such, the practicality of the css
purist to provide an alternate solution for all problems goes without
foundation. In other words, some things cannot be done without using
tables -- or at least not easily done. My statement is not a
challenge for some "css smart ass" to say "Oh really, just show me"
-- because I don't want to get into that debate!
However, I cite things like a calendar, and your MUD site, and other
such solutions that would be very difficult to accomplish using pure
css.
So as a stop-gap, I often revert back to the main reason why tables
are a "no-no" in the first place, which almost totally revolves
around the disabled. I figure if the disabled have no problems with
me using a table for certain things, then the css purist (my alter
ego) can go piss up a rope.
2. Debating an issue with you, is like arguing with God -- I seldom
want to do it because I usually have my ass handed back to me.
However, I usually learn something in the process -- so, it's a
bittersweet thing.
3. My quota for learning stuff this week has been met and thus I am
reluctant to post a comment as to your use of tables. I hope you
understand (as tedd runs to empty his head for the onslaught of
"things to consider" this way comes).
Cheers,
tedd
PS: Apologies in advance for any grammatical errors -- I am writing
in "stream of thought".
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 5/15/09 6:28 PM, "Nathan Rixham" <[email protected]> wrote:
> so ultimately i guess it's a case of 3 cheers and a round of applause
> for anybody who's thus far managed to create a website that works and
> that the client likes!
agreed. but lets hope some of the users like it too.
i think of all the web sites that i used to find useful, quick and easy that
got a make-over one day and wound up fancy, slow and confusing. i'm guessing
the client was satisfied with the redesign...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 11:28 PM +0100 5/15/09, Nathan Rixham wrote:
tedd wrote:
However, there are occasions such as in a calendar where not using
a table would be more than difficult. I haven't received a decree
yet as to IF that would be considered column data or not.
I'm gonna differ on this one, when you simply float each calender
item to the left you're pretty much done, in many cases i find it
easier than tables.
Okay -- so you find them easier to use for this purpose.
This is my little php calendar (not all the code is mine):
http://php1.net/my-php-calendar/
and I use tables.
I would not want to redo this script using pure css, but I probably
will do it at some point. We all have investments into our code.
Do you have a css calendar to show?
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 5/16/09 2:25 AM, "Paul M Foster" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I liken this sort of discussion to the dichotomy between movie critics
> and people who actually go and see movies. The critics inevitably have
> all sorts of snobby things to say about the movies which are best
> attended. I'm not sure why anyone listens to any critic on any subject.
that's a good metaphor.
the critic's first job (like the professional op ed writer) is to make sure
he or she keeps being read. take anthony lane in the new yorker for example.
actually i think he hates watching so many mainstream hollywood releases
week after week. he sure sounds like it. and his opinions on which movies to
watch aren't worth much. but he keeps my interest by being a great writer --
his snobbery and cleverness is so witty that's quite appealing and it helps
me hone the wit of my snobbery and cleverness, or so i perhaps unconsciously
hope. an opinion doesn't have to be right to be valuable.
an apt metaphor indeed.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 10:48 AM +0100 5/16/09, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
Trust me, semantics are gonna be the next big thing,
Semantics?
What do you mean by that?
And therein lies the problem -- what means something to me, may not to you.
For example, if I make my header <div id="header"> (or whatever) what
makes it the same as yours?
I think the next big thing will be an argument over meaning. :-)
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 9:15 AM -0400 5/16/09, Robert Cummings wrote:
FWIW, everything I've read indicates that tables don't affect SEO.
Cheers,
Rob.
Same here -- content is different than html.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 8:08 PM +0200 5/15/09, Daniele Grillenzoni wrote:
Most of the IE bugs are due to floating and clearing, once you have
learned to master overflow: auto and display: inline, you're good to
go.
Just don't get insane about trying to achieve pixel perfect in netscape4.
Good to go -- only for simple sites.
And for pixel perfect, no browser does that.
Here's my write-up on the subject:
http://sperling.com/four-things-clients-should-know.php
Comments welcome.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 7:48 PM -0400 5/16/09, Stephen wrote:
PJ wrote:
I know of no better place to ask. This may not be strictly a PHP issue,
but...
I am busting my hump trying to format rather large input pages with CSS
and trying to avoid tables; but it looks to me like I am wasting my time
as positioning with CSS seems an impossibly tortuous exercise.
CSS 2.1 makes layout easy ans IE8 passes ACID2.
I have some javascript that detects the browser and warns users of
IE <8 that they need to upgrade.
Maybe bleeding edge for commercial sites, but helping the user
upgrade is going them a favour.
Stephen
Stephen:
Browser sniffing is a losing battle.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 8:38 PM -0400 5/16/09, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 19:48 -0400, Stephen wrote:
PJ wrote:
> I know of no better place to ask. This may not be strictly a PHP issue,
> but...
> I am busting my hump trying to format rather large input pages with CSS
> and trying to avoid tables; but it looks to me like I am wasting my time
> as positioning with CSS seems an impossibly tortuous exercise.
CSS 2.1 makes layout easy ans IE8 passes ACID2.
I have some javascript that detects the browser and warns users of IE <8
that they need to upgrade.
Maybe bleeding edge for commercial sites, but helping the user upgrade
is going them a favour.
Stephen
Tell that to government... many, and in some departments most, are still
using IE6. I'm quite sure they won't appreciate me telling them it's
time to upgrade. On the plus side though, MediaWiki is breaking
ground :)
Cheers,
Rob.
--
What's interesting is that the government is behind a bunch of this
section 508 and other such disability concerns. I love to point out
when their sites fail and tell them that they couldn't receive a
government grant if they were in the private sector. Do as I
instruct, not as I do.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
tedd wrote:
At 11:28 PM +0100 5/15/09, Nathan Rixham wrote:
tedd wrote:
However, there are occasions such as in a calendar where not using a
table would be more than difficult. I haven't received a decree yet
as to IF that would be considered column data or not.
I'm gonna differ on this one, when you simply float each calender item
to the left you're pretty much done, in many cases i find it easier
than tables.
Okay -- so you find them easier to use for this purpose.
This is my little php calendar (not all the code is mine):
http://php1.net/my-php-calendar/
and I use tables.
I would not want to redo this script using pure css, but I probably will
do it at some point. We all have investments into our code.
Do you have a css calendar to show?
hi tedd,
didn't have one to hand so quickly knocked up a basic one here:
http://programphp.com/Calendar/
all sizes etc are in em so it'll fully resize - you'll see in the source
anyways - all css.
have to say it's not great but it's just a quick demo to show it's more
than possible.
many regards,
nathan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
tedd wrote:
At 10:48 AM +0100 5/16/09, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
Trust me, semantics are gonna be the next big thing,
Semantics?
What do you mean by that?
And therein lies the problem -- what means something to me, may not to you.
For example, if I make my header <div id="header"> (or whatever) what
makes it the same as yours?
I think the next big thing will be an argument over meaning. :-)
Cheers,
tedd
semantics already are the next big thing and have been for a year or
three. google aquired the leading semantic analysis software many years
ago and have been using it ever since, likewise with yahoo and all the
majors. further we've all had open access to basic scripts like the
yahoo term extraction service for years, and more recently (well maybe
2+ years) we've had access to open calais from reuters which will
extract some great semantics from any content.
if you've never seen then the best starting point is probably
http://viewer.opencalais.com/
pretty sure yahoo (and maybe google) have been parsing rdf semantic data
embedded inside comments in xhtml documents for a couple of years now,
even the adding of "tags" generated by semantic extraction are common
place now and make a big difference to seo.
If however you mean document structure semantics such as using h* tags
throughout the document in the correct places, then this is even older
and everybody should be doing it - hell that's what an html document is!
:p
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
tedd wrote:
At 7:48 PM -0400 5/16/09, Stephen wrote:
PJ wrote:
I know of no better place to ask. This may not be strictly a PHP issue,
but...
I am busting my hump trying to format rather large input pages with CSS
and trying to avoid tables; but it looks to me like I am wasting my time
as positioning with CSS seems an impossibly tortuous exercise.
CSS 2.1 makes layout easy ans IE8 passes ACID2.
I have some javascript that detects the browser and warns users of IE
<8 that they need to upgrade.
Maybe bleeding edge for commercial sites, but helping the user upgrade
is going them a favour.
Stephen
Stephen:
Browser sniffing is a losing battle.
Cheers,
tedd
agreed - complete and utter waste of time
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 15/5/09 18:25, PJ wrote:
I know of no better place to ask. This may not be strictly a PHP issue,
but...
I am busting my hump trying to format rather large input pages with CSS
and trying to avoid tables; but it looks to me like I am wasting my time
as positioning with CSS seems an impossibly tortuous exercise. I've
managed to do some pages with CSS, but I feel like I am shooting myself
in the foot or somewhere...
Perhaps I am too demanding. I know that with tables, the formatting is
ridiculously fast.
Any thoughts, observations or recommendations?
(X)HTML is the layer for structured content.
CSS - intended to replace presentational features in (X)HTML - is a
layer for suggesting a presentational skin for HTML and XML structured
content.
In (X)HTML, tabular markup is appropriate when you need to indicate data
relationships between cells and groups of cells. HTML 4.01 states:
"Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content
as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media.
Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to
scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger
display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to
control layout rather than tables."
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/tables.html#h-11.1
Separating content and presentation rather than using the same feature
("td") sometimes to imply relationships and sometimes to dictate a
rendering makes it easier to radically repurpose content (for example,
linearize content for display on a narrow device, extract the data
tables from a page, or read a page aloud).
Any implementation of the current CSS2 standard should allow you to
replicate /any/ table layout using (say) "div" containers and the
tabular values of "display" in place of "td" containers, but I'd add two
caveats:
1. "div" elements aren't always the most appropriate containers, but you
can't use tabular values of display to (say) arrange "li" elements into
a grid (because a single list can occupy multiple rows on the screen,
but there are no elements to style with "display: table-row;"). Having
said that, generic "div" elements are still preferable to "td" elements
used for the same purpose, since at least they can't be confused with
data table cells. CSS3 should offer more sophisticated layout features
that will make it easier to achieve whatever design you want with the
most appropriate markup, rather than root through the interwebs for hacks.
2. More crucially, while current versions of all popular browsers,
including IE8, support virtually all of CSS 2.1, many users are still
using older browsers especially IE6 or IE7 that are not only very buggy
but are missing support for key CSS2 features including the tabular
values for the "display" property. Web publishers who want to produce
grid layouts in legacy browsers must resort to float or negative
margin-based hackery even where using such features would be more
appropriate. Also email client support for CSS layout features still
sucks (http://www.campaignmonitor.com/css/); so if you're creating HTML
newsletters (shudder) you're probably going to have to stick to tabular
markup for layout for those.
Isolani offers an interesting corrective to CSS triumphalism:
http://www.isolani.co.uk/blog/standards/TheShallownessOfCssEvangelism
I'd always push for a change to the visual design rather than resort to
using tabular markup for layout.
But whether you apply a limited presentational subset of tabular markup
for layout (using only the "table", "tr", and "td" elements, perhaps
adding "role='presentation'" from WAI-ARIA, and trying to avoid nested
tables) is significantly less important than whether you use the
expected semantic markup to indicate relationships that user agents will
extract and present to users. For example:
1. The relationship between a data table cell and its headers ("th",
"td", "tr" elements, "scope", "headers", "id" attributes).
2. The relationship between a table and its title ("caption" element).
3. The relationship between a form field and its text label ("label"
element, "for", "id" attributes).
4. The relationship between a group of form fields and their label
("fieldset" and "legend" elements).
5. The sequence of sections in the document ("h1" to "h6" elements).
Sometimes people argue that certain forms involve tabular relationships.
This can be a defensible position. But at least until other ways of
indicating field label associations are specified and supported, you
should keep using the "label" element even if you are also grouping
labels and fields with the "tr" element.
But stepping beyond the undying tables-versus-CSS debate towards an
actual solution for your immediate problem, you might it find it
productive to share:
1. A description of your goals - the content you have, the layout you
want, and the minimum set of web clients you expect it to work for (IE7?
IE6? What if it can be made to work in IE6 with a bit of JS? Compare
http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/articles/gbs/ for one such statement of
support.)
2. A description of your actual problem in using HTML for structured
content and CSS for style.
3. A description of ways you've attempted to solve the problem without
success.
4. Minimal test cases (HTML + CSS) demonstrating the best of your
attempts and how they failed.
with a dedicated CSS mailing list like:
http://www.css-discuss.org/
filled with people who solve (or fail to solve) such layout problems on
a daily basis.
As you mention, you've "managed to do some pages with CSS" - maybe you
just need pointing in the right direction. :) It's worth raising your
question even if you won't have time to apply the answer to this
particular project.
Before consulting such a forum, I'd recommend reviewing a few
introductory resources, such as:
http://css.maxdesign.com.au/floatutorial/
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/page_layouts/
and the CSS articles in:
http://www.opera.com/company/education/curriculum/
- just in case your problem is more basic than it appears.
Hope that helps.
--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Nathan Rixham wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 7:48 PM -0400 5/16/09, Stephen wrote:
PJ wrote:
I know of no better place to ask. This may not be strictly a PHP
issue,
but...
I am busting my hump trying to format rather large input pages with
CSS
and trying to avoid tables; but it looks to me like I am wasting my
time
as positioning with CSS seems an impossibly tortuous exercise.
CSS 2.1 makes layout easy ans IE8 passes ACID2.
I have some javascript that detects the browser and warns users of
IE <8 that they need to upgrade.
Maybe bleeding edge for commercial sites, but helping the user
upgrade is going them a favour.
Stephen
Stephen:
Browser sniffing is a losing battle.
Cheers,
tedd
agreed - complete and utter waste of time
If someone wants to mask their browser, so be it.
They will see a false warning, or miss a useful one.
Standards exist for a reason. Web designers have wasted eons of man
years accommodating Microsoft's incompetence. Finally getting things
right takes some people to start, and it is those of us without a
commercial need to be friendly to IE <8.
Stephen
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 08:40:33PM +0100, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> tedd wrote:
>> At 11:28 PM +0100 5/15/09, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>>> tedd wrote:
>>>> However, there are occasions such as in a calendar where not using a
>>>> table would be more than difficult. I haven't received a decree yet
>>>> as to IF that would be considered column data or not.
>>>
>>> I'm gonna differ on this one, when you simply float each calender item
>>> to the left you're pretty much done, in many cases i find it easier
>>> than tables.
>>
>> Okay -- so you find them easier to use for this purpose.
>>
>> This is my little php calendar (not all the code is mine):
>>
>> http://php1.net/my-php-calendar/
>>
>> and I use tables.
>>
>> I would not want to redo this script using pure css, but I probably will
>> do it at some point. We all have investments into our code.
>>
>> Do you have a css calendar to show?
>>
>
> hi tedd,
>
> didn't have one to hand so quickly knocked up a basic one here:
> http://programphp.com/Calendar/
>
> all sizes etc are in em so it'll fully resize - you'll see in the source
> anyways - all css.
>
> have to say it's not great but it's just a quick demo to show it's more
> than possible.
It's very pretty, Nathan. *Except* in IE6, which is what probably most
of the world is using. In IE6, the day labels are lined up one on top of
each other, and there are no date "cells" at all. No numbers, no
nothing.
And therein lies the reason why people use tables.
Paul
--
Paul M. Foster
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 17/5/09 22:43, Paul M Foster wrote:
*Except* in IE6, which is what probably most of the world is using.
Probably "a lot" rather than "most".
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
---
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Paul M Foster wrote:
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 08:40:33PM +0100, Nathan Rixham wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 11:28 PM +0100 5/15/09, Nathan Rixham wrote:
tedd wrote:
However, there are occasions such as in a calendar where not using a
table would be more than difficult. I haven't received a decree yet
as to IF that would be considered column data or not.
I'm gonna differ on this one, when you simply float each calender item
to the left you're pretty much done, in many cases i find it easier
than tables.
Okay -- so you find them easier to use for this purpose.
This is my little php calendar (not all the code is mine):
http://php1.net/my-php-calendar/
and I use tables.
I would not want to redo this script using pure css, but I probably will
do it at some point. We all have investments into our code.
Do you have a css calendar to show?
hi tedd,
didn't have one to hand so quickly knocked up a basic one here:
http://programphp.com/Calendar/
all sizes etc are in em so it'll fully resize - you'll see in the source
anyways - all css.
have to say it's not great but it's just a quick demo to show it's more
than possible.
It's very pretty, Nathan. *Except* in IE6, which is what probably most
of the world is using. In IE6, the day labels are lined up one on top of
each other, and there are no date "cells" at all. No numbers, no
nothing.
And therein lies the reason why people use tables.
Paul
and if every site a user visited was screwed in IE6 because the
developers had made it without tables, maybe they'd all upgrade to
something newer.
you never know we might be bringing it on ourselves by still coding
sites to be compatible with old browsers.
When I go and buy a film I don't buy a vhs or a betamax.. because I
can't - that industry simply stopped making them and if I want to own a
new film I buy the dvd - I don't write to paramount and complain because
I only have a betamax.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 17/05/2009 20.51, tedd wrote:
At 8:08 PM +0200 5/15/09, Daniele Grillenzoni wrote:
Most of the IE bugs are due to floating and clearing, once you have
learned to master overflow: auto and display: inline, you're good to go.
Just don't get insane about trying to achieve pixel perfect in netscape4.
Good to go -- only for simple sites.
And for pixel perfect, no browser does that.
Here's my write-up on the subject:
http://sperling.com/four-things-clients-should-know.php
Comments welcome.
Cheers,
tedd
Re-read my sentence:
"most of the IE bugs" as opposed to "all IE bugs"
Also: 404.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul M Foster [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 5:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PHP] CSS & tables
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 08:40:33PM +0100, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> tedd wrote:
>> At 11:28 PM +0100 5/15/09, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>>> tedd wrote:
>>>> However, there are occasions such as in a calendar where not using a
>>>> table would be more than difficult. I haven't received a decree yet
>>>> as to IF that would be considered column data or not.
>>>
>>> I'm gonna differ on this one, when you simply float each calender item
>>> to the left you're pretty much done, in many cases i find it easier
>>> than tables.
>>
>> Okay -- so you find them easier to use for this purpose.
>>
>> This is my little php calendar (not all the code is mine):
>>
>> http://php1.net/my-php-calendar/
>>
>> and I use tables.
>>
>> I would not want to redo this script using pure css, but I probably will
>> do it at some point. We all have investments into our code.
>>
>> Do you have a css calendar to show?
>>
>
> hi tedd,
>
> didn't have one to hand so quickly knocked up a basic one here:
> http://programphp.com/Calendar/
>
> all sizes etc are in em so it'll fully resize - you'll see in the source
> anyways - all css.
>
> have to say it's not great but it's just a quick demo to show it's more
> than possible.
Seems that CSS calendar script is only working in IE8 and the latest Firefox
(didn't check it on earlier versions of FF) everything else showed layout
issues. Not bad for a "quick throw together" though.
As far as Semantics et al. The next 2 years the web will be shifting into
newer directions, become much more robust and "intelligent". Obviously it
isn't a true intelligence yet. Things like Wolfram Alpha are still to be
seen. I hear a lot of hype regarding this new Google killer yet until I see
it...
Web 3.0 (or the true 2.0 depending on who you ask) will change how many of
use view and develop for the WWW. I hope there are some serious back room
discussions on the laws of robotics. :)
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4081 (20090517) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:20:19PM +0100, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> Paul M Foster wrote:
>> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 08:40:33PM +0100, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>>
>>> tedd wrote:
>>>> At 11:28 PM +0100 5/15/09, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>>>>> tedd wrote:
>>>>>> However, there are occasions such as in a calendar where not using a
>>>>>> table would be more than difficult. I haven't received a decree yet
>>>>>> as to IF that would be considered column data or not.
>>>>> I'm gonna differ on this one, when you simply float each calender item
>>>>> to the left you're pretty much done, in many cases i find it easier
>>>>> than tables.
>>>> Okay -- so you find them easier to use for this purpose.
>>>>
>>>> This is my little php calendar (not all the code is mine):
>>>>
>>>> http://php1.net/my-php-calendar/
>>>>
>>>> and I use tables.
>>>>
>>>> I would not want to redo this script using pure css, but I probably will
>>>> do it at some point. We all have investments into our code.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a css calendar to show?
>>>>
>>> hi tedd,
>>>
>>> didn't have one to hand so quickly knocked up a basic one here:
>>> http://programphp.com/Calendar/
>>>
>>> all sizes etc are in em so it'll fully resize - you'll see in the source
>>> anyways - all css.
>>>
>>> have to say it's not great but it's just a quick demo to show it's more
>>> than possible.
>>
>> It's very pretty, Nathan. *Except* in IE6, which is what probably most
>> of the world is using. In IE6, the day labels are lined up one on top of
>> each other, and there are no date "cells" at all. No numbers, no
>> nothing.
>>
>> And therein lies the reason why people use tables.
>>
>> Paul
>
> and if every site a user visited was screwed in IE6 because the
> developers had made it without tables, maybe they'd all upgrade to
> something newer.
No, they'd simply go elsewhere for their product/service/information.
Moreover, they don't know that the site is goofy because of their
browsers' lack of support for CSS. In fact, the vast majority of them
wouldn't even know something called "CSS" exists.
And by the way, this attitude of "My code is fine; your browser sucks;
upgrade" can be the worst kind of arrogance, and people react to it
exactly as though it were arrogance. There used to be the same kind of
attitude with regard to screen resolution. 640x480 was just so "80s",
and *all* the latest monitors supported 1280x1024 or whatever. So we
design for 1280x1024 and screw those Luddite users. I would agree if
someone's using Netscape 4; you'd have to kindly break it to them that
they really should upgrade. But beyond that, it gets gray.
Telling a user to upgrade his browser because it won't display your way
kewl website properly is like telling someone it's time to trade in
their car. The car still runs fine, and gets them from point A to point
B without a lot of maintenance issues. Why should they trade it in? And
they'll react with resentment. The analogy isn't perfect. Computer/web
technology moves a lot faster than car technology. But there are
probably still sites out there which will sell them the doodad they want
without them having to upgrade their browser. Why stay with you?
To be honest, I think the reason the site didn't paint properly is
because you put the "content" of the cells (the outline numbering) in
the CSS. If you had inserted content for each cell into the actual HTML,
it might have painted fine. Nonetheless...
Paul
--
Paul M. Foster
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Paul M Foster wrote:
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:20:19PM +0100, Nathan Rixham wrote:
Paul M Foster wrote:
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 08:40:33PM +0100, Nathan Rixham wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 11:28 PM +0100 5/15/09, Nathan Rixham wrote:
tedd wrote:
However, there are occasions such as in a calendar where not using a
table would be more than difficult. I haven't received a decree yet
as to IF that would be considered column data or not.
I'm gonna differ on this one, when you simply float each calender item
to the left you're pretty much done, in many cases i find it easier
than tables.
Okay -- so you find them easier to use for this purpose.
This is my little php calendar (not all the code is mine):
http://php1.net/my-php-calendar/
and I use tables.
I would not want to redo this script using pure css, but I probably will
do it at some point. We all have investments into our code.
Do you have a css calendar to show?
hi tedd,
didn't have one to hand so quickly knocked up a basic one here:
http://programphp.com/Calendar/
all sizes etc are in em so it'll fully resize - you'll see in the source
anyways - all css.
have to say it's not great but it's just a quick demo to show it's more
than possible.
It's very pretty, Nathan. *Except* in IE6, which is what probably most
of the world is using. In IE6, the day labels are lined up one on top of
each other, and there are no date "cells" at all. No numbers, no
nothing.
And therein lies the reason why people use tables.
Paul
and if every site a user visited was screwed in IE6 because the
developers had made it without tables, maybe they'd all upgrade to
something newer.
No, they'd simply go elsewhere for their product/service/information.
Moreover, they don't know that the site is goofy because of their
browsers' lack of support for CSS. In fact, the vast majority of them
wouldn't even know something called "CSS" exists.
And by the way, this attitude of "My code is fine; your browser sucks;
upgrade" can be the worst kind of arrogance, and people react to it
exactly as though it were arrogance. There used to be the same kind of
attitude with regard to screen resolution. 640x480 was just so "80s",
and *all* the latest monitors supported 1280x1024 or whatever. So we
design for 1280x1024 and screw those Luddite users. I would agree if
someone's using Netscape 4; you'd have to kindly break it to them that
they really should upgrade. But beyond that, it gets gray.
Telling a user to upgrade his browser because it won't display your way
kewl website properly is like telling someone it's time to trade in
their car. The car still runs fine, and gets them from point A to point
B without a lot of maintenance issues. Why should they trade it in? And
they'll react with resentment. The analogy isn't perfect. Computer/web
technology moves a lot faster than car technology. But there are
probably still sites out there which will sell them the doodad they want
without them having to upgrade their browser. Why stay with you?
yeah - major difference being that upgrading your web browser if free,
and as we well know you can have multiple browsers installed with no
problems.
I understand what you are saying, but if 50%+ of the worlds web
developers simply cut support for x, y & z browser (or displayed a
limited site with a notice) then I think the old browsers may just go
away (90%). eg if google, facebook, msn, ebay, yahoo all cut support for
them..
To be honest, I think the reason the site didn't paint properly is
because you put the "content" of the cells (the outline numbering) in
the CSS. If you had inserted content for each cell into the actual HTML,
it might have painted fine. Nonetheless...
yup, and its css3 with selectors that are unsupported by ie6 + even with
content it'll hit a few bugs - infact it just won't work in ie6 full stop.
regards!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 10:37 AM +0100 5/16/09, Vernon St Croix wrote:
Hi,
I am pretty new to PHP and I am trying to create a shopping cart.
Hi Vee:
I'm new to brain surgery and every time I poke here, I see stars --
any idea of what's wrong? :-)
If you are new to php, then find something simple to cut your teeth
on -- shopping carts are not trivial. At best, you'll create a bunch
of junk code and waste a lot of your time AND at worst, you'll create
a script that ruins your client and puts you on the hook for mondo
bucks.
My opinion, buy a shopping cart and figure out how to install it.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--- End Message ---
