Hi, > For some reason never learned about the tbody element. When did > that get added to the spec
Proposed in 1996, standardized in HTML 4.01 in 1999.[1] It's a cool element, because amongst other things, you can have more than one of them. So if you have a table with rows you want to replace and other rows you don't, you can put them in separate TBODYs and group them that way. AFAIK, it's always been optional (officially optional) in the *markup* (it certainly is in HTML5), but that's in the markup; in standards mode, browsers have been inserting it in the DOM for you for years. For example: http://jsbin.com/urito5 If you run that on IE6, IE7, IE8, Chrome, Firefox, or Opera, they'll all say the only child element of the TABLE element is a TBODY, although there's no TBODY in the markup. Interestingly, HTML5 seems to allow TR to be a direct child of TABLE, even in the DOM[2]. That surprises me, I thought it was just in the list of elements that an engine was meant to infer.[3] I'm probably just misreading the spec. I always explicitly include TBODY if there's any chance I'm going to need to manipulate the DOM at the table level, just so I know where I am even on "edge" browsers. 1: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html#edef-TBODY 2: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/tabular-data.html#the-table-element 3: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#optional-tags Best, -- T.J. Crowder Independent Software Engineer tj / crowder software / com www / crowder software / com On Feb 16, 4:37 pm, Jeffrey Lee <jlee...@gmail.com> wrote: > That will teach me to rely on google and random discussions online. :) I was > suspicious that the <div> was in an awkward location, but hadn't come up with > a good way to replace just the body of the table. For some reason never > learned about the tbody element. When did that get added to the spec, or has > that always been there and just not used by hacks like me? Granted the last > time I spent any energy on creating and editing web pages before this year > was in the late 90's. > ___________________________ > Jeffrey Leehttp://www.jeffreyalanlee.com > jlee...@gmail.com > > On Feb 16, 2011, at 8:28 , Walter Lee Davis wrote: > > > > > > > > > Not in my memory of HTML, which begins in 1997. It's certainly possible to > > put that into a browser and see something. Browsers are designed to ignore > > or coerce invalid code as best they can, to preserve the intent where > > possible. But there's a mile of difference between the JavaScript DOM > > interpreter and the browser's HTML display engine. > > > JavaScript doesn't even receive the HTML as written in code from the > > browser when it's constructing its starting DOM tree, it uses the output of > > the browser's first pass at munging the input code stream into shape. This > > is why you can see a big difference between Firebug and view source, for > > example. > > > So whenever you are interacting directly with the DOM, as you do in > > Prototype Element#update or anything else that inserts elements into the > > DOM, you are relied on to insert something that makes sense in the context > > where it will be added. If you don't, you get an error or you get ignored. > > > One other example of this, directly related to tables: It's perfectly valid > > code to write <table id="foo"><tr><td>Something</td></tr></table>, but it's > > more correct to write <table > > id="foo"><tbody><tr><td>Something</td></tr></tbody></table>. Most browsers > > will silently add that missing intermediate element when the page loads. > > > So if you wanted to get a handle on your first row, and you used > > $('foo').childElements()[0] (totally made-up example) then you might > > actually get a reference to the tbody -- the element you didn't actually > > code! > > > Now you're probably smarter than that, and you'd write $('foo').down('tr') > > and get what you wanted, but that's just an example to make the point that > > the code you wrote isn't even guaranteed to be the code you're going to be > > talking to when you start messing with the DOM. > > > Walter > > > On Feb 16, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Jeffrey Lee wrote: > > >> Shows how outdated my HTML is. Thanks for the pointer. Its funny, when I > >> was googling around apparently once upon a time it was at least tolerated, > >> if not officially acceptable, to have <div> as a child of table. > >> ___________________________ > >> Jeffrey Lee > >>http://www.jeffreyalanlee.com > >> jlee...@gmail.com > > >> On Feb 15, 2011, at 23:20 , T.J. Crowder wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> That HTML is invalid. You can't have a `div` as a child of `table`: > >>>http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/tabular-data.html#the-table-element > > >>> If you want to subdivide a table like that, you probably want `thead` > >>> (for your headers) and one or more `tbody` elements: > > >>> <table> > >>> <thead> > >>> <tr> > >>> <th>Item</th> > >>> <th>Transaction Type</th> > >>> <th>Quantity</th> > >>> <th>Amount</th> > >>> <th>Transaction comments</th> > >>> </tr> > >>> </thead> > >>> <tbody id = "transList"> > >>> <tr> > >>> <<bunch of table data>> > >>> </tr> > >>> <tr> > >>> <<bunch of table data>> > >>> </tr><tr> > >>> <<bunch of table data>> > >>> </tr> > >>> </tbody> > >>> </table> > > >>> ...and then your update will have to be valid `tbody` content (e.g., > >>> rows). > > >>> Example: > >>>http://jsbin.com/evuxe3 > > >>> HTH, > >>> -- > >>> T.J. Crowder > >>> Independent Software Engineer > >>> tj / crowder software / com > >>> www / crowder software / com > > >>> On Feb 15, 10:59 pm, Jeff <jlee...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> This is a rails generated webpage. I've created a table definition as > >>>> follows: > > >>>> <table> > >>>> <tr> > >>>> <th>Item</th> > >>>> <th>Transaction Type</th> > >>>> <th>Quantity</th> > >>>> <th>Amount</th> > >>>> <th>Transaction comments</th> > >>>> </tr> > > >>>> <div id = "transList"> > >>>> <tr> > >>>> <<bunch of table data>> > >>>> </tr><tr> > >>>> <<bunch of table data>> > >>>> </tr><tr> > >>>> <<bunch of table data>> > >>>> </tr> > >>>> </div> > >>>> </table> > > >>>> If I execute a $('transList').update('Test') or frankly any other text > >>>> or html, the existing table data remains, and the updated text is > >>>> placed above the entire table. However, if I do a view - >source, > >>>> this new data doesn't show up in the page source at all, only the old > >>>> table data. > > >>>> I'm having this problem in both Safari and Firefox. Any suggestions? > > >>> -- > >>> 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 > >>> prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com. > >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >>> prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > >>> For more options, visit this group > >>> athttp://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en. > > >> -- > >> 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 > >> prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > >> For more options, visit this group > >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en. > > > -- > > 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 > > prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en. -- 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 prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en.
