[wdvltalk] Re: Expanding tables
Hi,
if you set table {height:100%} it will expand with the window;
however, if you do not have the body {margin-left:0; margin-top:0}
set, it will not go all the way to the top of the window.
Also, the table's bottom edge stops short, about 1/4 from the bottom.
Have you tried setting the margin-right and margin-bottom to 0 as well?
Cheers
Jon
The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM
To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version:
http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub
http://www.wdvl.com ___
You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[wdvltalk] JSP Editor
I have to bench mark various JSP Editors, any suggestion would be appreciated.. Thanks The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[wdvltalk] Re: Insert Logo
Sherry wrote: I have a question related to Maverick's dilemma: If you are writing tables for NN 4.7X, is it better to do this logo/header sort of insert via CSS or SSI? I won't be using ASP. I'm working my way up to actually *doing* something here. I'm sure you'll all faint if I ever actually make a move. Tim: I'm supporting NN4.7x, and I use SSI for the simple fact that if I want a page without the logo, it's more intuitive to leave out the include statement rather than figure out the CSS. I've had so much trouble with NN4.7x and CSS that I try to keep the CSS to specific known capabilities - like changing font sizes and faces. I keep away from CSS for any kind of positioning - I still use tables, unfortunately. There's one minor exception to that on the site and it took me a couple of days to get it working cross-browser. We won't faint if you actually do something! :) Most of us were around when you started out, and when you published your site the first time. Your perseverence is known. :) Tim ___ Tim Furry Web Developer Foulston Siefkin LLP The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[wdvltalk] Re: Expanding tables
Hello, I'm pretty sure that the height = '100%' and style = 'height: 100%' do *NOT* work any longer in the newer IEs (like IE6) and newer Netscapes (like 7). This is based on my experience with a site I worked on a while ago (www.jeremypeirce.com) that uses a table to layout the page elements ... my goal was to have the sidebar go all the way to the bottom of the page by setting the height of the table it was part of, but I was thwarted! Works ok in older browsers and in Opera 6, though. Can anyone else speak to this apparent change, and/or offer any ways around it? Or tell me whether this behavior is a result of some snafu on my part? Amanda Birmingham At 07:54 PM 2/6/2003 -0800, you wrote: Is it possible to specify that a HTML table expand it's height to fit the whole page. If so, what is the code? The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[wdvltalk] Re: Expanding tables
I tried doing a google on if table height was vaild, but I couldn't seem to find anything clear, and I often get a migrane when trying to find a clear quick answer at the W3C. So... I pulled out my O'Reilly HTML XHTML The Definitive Guide and part of what it says is about the height attribute: This attribute is useful when trying to stretch tables to fit in a frame or some specific area of a document but is of little use otherwise, particularly since it is not a standard attribute. And since the direction is supposed to be toward CSS for layout, not tables, putting in a non standard table attribute isn't going to be too important on the list of features for newer, more compliant browsers. Even if it would make some designers' lives easier. Ali - Original Message - From: Amanda Birmingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 11:35 AM Subject: [wdvltalk] Re: Expanding tables Hello, I'm pretty sure that the height = '100%' and style = 'height: 100%' do *NOT* work any longer in the newer IEs (like IE6) and newer Netscapes (like [...} Can anyone else speak to this apparent change, and/or offer any ways around it? Or tell me whether this behavior is a result of some snafu on my part? Amanda Birmingham The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[wdvltalk] Re: Expanding tables
Ali, Thanks, but as I mentioned earlier, the problem I'm seeing is not just with the nonstandard height attribute: I get exactly the same results when using the style attribute, as in style = 'height: 100%'--which is (AFAIK) perfectly legal for XHTML and CSS. The newer netscape and IE don't seem to me to be honoring 100% height requests no matter HOW they are made. What's up with that?? Amanda Birmingham At 01:08 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote: I tried doing a google on if table height was vaild, but I couldn't seem to find anything clear, and I often get a migrane when trying to find a clear quick answer at the W3C. So... I pulled out my O'Reilly HTML XHTML The Definitive Guide and part of what it says is about the height attribute: This attribute is useful when trying to stretch tables to fit in a frame or some specific area of a document but is of little use otherwise, particularly since it is not a standard attribute. And since the direction is supposed to be toward CSS for layout, not tables, putting in a non standard table attribute isn't going to be too important on the list of features for newer, more compliant browsers. Even if it would make some designers' lives easier. Ali - Original Message - From: Amanda Birmingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 11:35 AM Subject: [wdvltalk] Re: Expanding tables Hello, I'm pretty sure that the height = '100%' and style = 'height: 100%' do *NOT* work any longer in the newer IEs (like IE6) and newer Netscapes (like [...} Can anyone else speak to this apparent change, and/or offer any ways around it? Or tell me whether this behavior is a result of some snafu on my part? Amanda Birmingham The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003 The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[wdvltalk] Re: re Expanding tables: CODE
After my first post, I sat to task and worked it out. I sent a off-list email to myncs
and will post the code below. It works with MSIE and should be bendable to apply
cross-browser. Essentially, it's javascript which changes the table-height variable
dynamically onResize of the browser window.
I'll try and paste the code without AOL mucking it up. Just omit the pre tags, copy
and paste, add the standard html file tags to round-out the html document. If
anyone tests it cross-browser or makes some better changes, please offer them up! ~Jim
---CODING--
pre
script language='javascript'
function browCheck(layerID){
if(document.getElementById){
return document.getElementById(layerID).style;
}else if(document.all){
return document.all[layerID].style;
}else if(document.layers){
return document.layers[layerID].style;
}
}
function tabH(){
theight = document.body.offsetHeight -5;
browzer = browCheck('table_name');
browzer.height=theight;
}
/script
style type='text/css'
table {color:cyan; font-family:verdana; font-weight:bold; border:5 cyan ridge;
width:60%; align:center;cell-spacing:5pt; cell-padding:5pt}
td {text-align:center; border:2 orange dashed}
/style
/head
body onLoad=tabH(); onResize=tabH()
!-- the onload function is called to make sure that onload the table resizes --
table id='table_name' align='center'
trtd colspan=2h2The Table Height Expands!/h2/td/tr
trtdCells have an orange border/tdtdAnd the table has a teal border/td/tr
/table
/pre
The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM
To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version:
http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub
http://www.wdvl.com ___
You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[wdvltalk] Re: Expanding tables
Amanda, I am working on a project right now that uses (smack my hand) height=100% on the table and IE6 displays it fine. see: http://mechavox.com/athena/ All the gecko browsers ignore it, as they should, but I agree, if they are going to ignore the nonstandard stuff, then at least let us have the standardized methods. Alas, this is the nature of our jobs. Essentially, we can hack, work around, complain, etc. but it all comes down to waiting for the next browser version, and then for the two years following it takes for the more forward thinking users to upgrade. Its frustrating, but for me a happy frustration. Reflection aside though, if you do find a work around for the mean time, I'm all ears. !!--Insert Browsing Time Here --!! I'm back! I just did a search on Netscapes help site and turned up some interesting results: apparently assigning a height of 100% to an element doesn't give it any thing to reference 100% in relation to and it will default to height:auto... so, if you asign a height to the parent element, in this case the body: Presto! it works. See this example: http://mechavox.com/athena/100percentHeight.html :) Massive Grin Well, thats enough for me! Off to the Pub, have a good weekend, everyone! Cheers, Stephen Caudill Amanda Birmingham wrote: Ali, Thanks, but as I mentioned earlier, the problem I'm seeing is not just with the nonstandard height attribute: I get exactly the same results when using the style attribute, as in style = 'height: 100%'--which is (AFAIK) perfectly legal for XHTML and CSS. The newer netscape and IE don't seem to me to be honoring 100% height requests no matter HOW they are made. What's up with that?? Amanda Birmingham At 01:08 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote: I tried doing a google on if table height was vaild, but I couldn't seem to find anything clear, and I often get a migrane when trying to find a clear quick answer at the W3C. So... I pulled out my O'Reilly HTML XHTML The Definitive Guide and part of what it says is about the height attribute: This attribute is useful when trying to stretch tables to fit in a frame or some specific area of a document but is of little use otherwise, particularly since it is not a standard attribute. And since the direction is supposed to be toward CSS for layout, not tables, putting in a non standard table attribute isn't going to be too important on the list of features for newer, more compliant browsers. Even if it would make some designers' lives easier. Ali - Original Message - From: Amanda Birmingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 11:35 AM Subject: [wdvltalk] Re: Expanding tables Hello, I'm pretty sure that the height = '100%' and style = 'height: 100%' do *NOT* work any longer in the newer IEs (like IE6) and newer Netscapes (like [...} Can anyone else speak to this apparent change, and/or offer any ways around it? Or tell me whether this behavior is a result of some snafu on my part? Amanda Birmingham * The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM * To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003 * The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM * To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[wdvltalk] StoredProcedures
I have been lurking around the site for awhile and have picked up many thoughts, ideas and tidbits of info. Thanks! I have a site that has some heavy-duty reporting. The user can limit the records returned by making choices from several lists. I take these choices and assemble the WHERE clause and plug it into the SQL statement. Everything works except I have a speed problem and would like to move the sql to stored procedures. But passing parameters into SP's seem limiting. Is there a way to pass in the entire WHERE clause as a parameter? or how about using LIKE and sending in an array? TIA Bill Mais The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[wdvltalk] Re: StoredProcedures
Is there a way to pass in the entire WHERE clause as a parameter? yeah, but then there's no point in using a stored procedure, because the advantage of the stored procedure is that the database can figure it out ahead of time (compile it, as it were), and if the retrieval condition columns are known, it can't do that or how about using LIKE and sending in an array? not sure how that would work, but LIKE is notoriously inefficient if you say LIKE foo% then an index might be used but if you say LIKE %foo% then no index will be used if you have an array of primary keys, then that is efficient (and you gain little by having a stored proc) i assume you will be using something like WHERE pkey IN ( n, m, ... ) where n etc. are key values but this begs the question of where those pkeys came from in the first place if they were obtained from a previous query, the question then arises, why do you need to query again, why weren't the tables in this second query included in a JOIN in the first rudy The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[wdvltalk] Re: StoredProcedures
Thanks rudy, you have a very clear way of explaining things. It makes sense the sp can only be compiled if it is complete. I should have said IN not LIKE but I am sure the same things apply. I will check the indexes again and also see if we can archive some stuff. Bill -Original Message- From: rudy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 3:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [wdvltalk] Re: StoredProcedures Is there a way to pass in the entire WHERE clause as a parameter? yeah, but then there's no point in using a stored procedure, because the advantage of the stored procedure is that the database can figure it out ahead of time (compile it, as it were), and if the retrieval condition columns are known, it can't do that or how about using LIKE and sending in an array? not sure how that would work, but LIKE is notoriously inefficient if you say LIKE foo% then an index might be used but if you say LIKE %foo% then no index will be used if you have an array of primary keys, then that is efficient (and you gain little by having a stored proc) i assume you will be using something like WHERE pkey IN ( n, m, ... ) where n etc. are key values but this begs the question of where those pkeys came from in the first place if they were obtained from a previous query, the question then arises, why do you need to query again, why weren't the tables in this second query included in a JOIN in the first rudy The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[wdvltalk] Re: Expanding tables
Stephen, Thanks very much--your example works most beautifully! Time to do the dance of web designer joy :) Have some well-deserved fun at the pub! Amanda Birmingham At 05:10 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, you wrote: I'm back! I just did a search on Netscapes help site and turned up some interesting results: apparently assigning a height of 100% to an element doesn't give it any thing to reference 100% in relation to and it will default to height:auto... so, if you asign a height to the parent element, in this case the body: Presto! it works. See this example: http://mechavox.com/athena/100percentHeight.html :) Massive Grin Well, thats enough for me! Off to the Pub, have a good weekend, everyone! Cheers, Stephen Caudill The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[wdvltalk] Re: StoredProcedures
On Friday, February 7, 2003 at 23:16, Bill Mais wrote: BM It makes sense the sp can only be compiled if it is complete. the stored procedure will be compiled, but will be recompiled on each use as the sql changed. this means that the database can't use the execution plan it has calculated for that procedure. if you're using ms sql server and want to head down this route, one thing you might want to take a look at is sp_executesql which might be able to get away without recompilation. also be aware of the security implications of using dynamic sql in a stored proc, the user executing the procedure has to have permissions on the tables you are trying to select from. BM I should have said IN not LIKE but I am sure the same things apply. I BM will check the indexes again and also see if we can archive some stuff. if you are using ms sql 2k, you can pass in a string and use a user defined function to return a table that you can join to your query. might be easier. hth, darren The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[wdvltalk] Re: StoredProcedures
It makes sense the sp can only be compiled if it is complete. actually, it can be compiled as long as it has some idea of what will happen for example, WHERE foo = @param the compiler knows that a value will be substituted at run time it knows that foo has an index, so it knows it can compile the execution plan for this query using an index search so stored procs only have to be as complete as necessary to determine what execution plan to use rudy The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[wdvltalk] Re: Expanding tables
Thanks, but as I mentioned earlier, the problem I'm seeing is not just with the nonstandard height attribute: I get exactly the same results when using the style attribute, as in style = 'height: 100%'--which is (AFAIK) perfectly legal for XHTML and CSS. The newer netscape and IE don't seem to me to be honoring 100% height requests no matter HOW they are made. What's up with that?? I have had the same situation. I had a box (div) which floated left, for a menu, with the remainder of the text in a box that took the rest of the width of the containing box. With the height of the left box set to 100%, it never did flow down so that its bottom was level with the bottom of the right box. I tried this for days, with coloured borders around every box on the page, to see if I could get it right. I never did find a real answer, and resorted to workarounds. Regards, David The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[wdvltalk] Re: StoredProcedures
Working late, rudy? Or is it early in your neighbourhood? Sherry from New Hampshire (11:30 EST) rudy wrote: Is there a way to pass in the entire WHERE clause as a parameter? yeah, but then there's no point in using a stored procedure, because the advantage of the stored procedure is that the database can figure it out ahead of time (compile it, as it were), and if the retrieval condition columns are known, it can't do that The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Send Your Posts To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change subscription settings to the wdvltalk digest version: http://wdvl.internet.com/WDVL/Forum/#sub http://www.wdvl.com ___ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
