Hello T.J., thanks for supporting me.
Regards Manfred > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "T.J. Crowder" <[email protected]> > Gesendet: So. 18.01.09 (11:59) > An: "Prototype & script.aculo.us" > (...) > Most browsers will tolerate it if you don't do that > with > literal HTML (they insert the TBODY for you when parsing), but > perhaps > IE isn't doing that when you go straight to the DOM and build things > up yourself. Easy enough to try it and see if that's what's wrong. You gave me the right tip. TBody was missing in IE. > > BTW, FWIW, if this is a really big table, you _may_ find that you get > better performance building up an HTML string and then letting the > browser interpret the string (you can put a div where you want the > table to be, then use Element#update on the div and pass in the > string). Browsers are really optimized around parsing HTML and > building up the necessary internal structures, whereas their DOM > access methods can be markedly slower. Depends on the browser and > version. And again, if the table is small, it doesn't matter. At the moment I have a little problem with the images width. It seems that IE have a problem with the img attribute width=80px. When I fixed this problem I will try your suggestion about the table performance. At the moment I didn't understand what you mean. It is possible that you can give me an example? Regards Manfred Gesendet von freenetMail- Mehr als nur eine E-Mail-Adresse http://email.freenet.de/dienste/emailoffice/produktuebersicht/basic/mail/index.html?pid=6828 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
