Hi Manfred, No worries, glad that helped.
> 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. You mean the "width" attribute on an "img" element? If so, don't put the "px" on, that's a CSS thing (since CSS supports other units of measure) whereas the "width" attribute on the element is an old- fashioned HTML thing (that doesn't). So it's either the old HTML attribute: <img src='...' width='80' /> or CSS: <img src='...' style='width: 80px' /> or of course use CSS in a stylsheet. > When I fixed this problem I will try your suggestion about the table > performance. Here's an example: http://pastie.org/364518 On my machine, the DOM version takes at least 10 times longer than the HTML version. This seems surprising at first given that you're building up a string that the browser just has to interpret; but if you think in terms of the browser being specifically designed and optimised for doing exactly that (reading HTML, setting up its internal data structures), it actually kind of makes sense. Hopefully over time browsers will make their mapping of the DOM onto their internal structures faster... FWIW, -- T.J. Crowder tj / crowder software / com Independent Software Engineer, consulting services available On Jan 19, 9:17 am, [email protected] wrote: > 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-Adressehttp://email.freenet.de/dienste/emailoffice/produktuebersicht/basic/m... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
