Sunday, July 4, 2004, 10:33:11 AM, Kevin wrote: KA> The original poster was working with HTML anyway. At that point there KA> is no harm using an external application to copy a table in-line. Tens KA> of millions of people use it this way (including myself) without KA> difficulty.
KA> What exactly is your consern? OK, I'm being a bit of a purist, but I feel in good company considering the extensive anti-HTML email threads of times gone by. I just think this: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd";> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> <TITLE>Title</TITLE> <STYLE type="text/css">TABLE{border-collapse:collapse} TD{border:1px solid;padding:1em;width:50%}</STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <TABLE> <TR><TD>Cell 1</TD><TD>Cell 2</TD></TR> <TR><TD>Cell 3</TD><TD>Cell 4</TD></TR> </TABLE> </BODY></HTML> is better than this: <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97"> <TITLE>Cell 1</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <TABLE BORDER CELLSPACING=1 CELLPADDING=7 WIDTH=568> <TR><TD WIDTH="50%" VALIGN="TOP"> <FONT SIZE=2><P>Cell 1</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="50%" VALIGN="TOP"> <FONT SIZE=2><P>Cell 2</FONT></TD> </TR> <TR><TD WIDTH="50%" VALIGN="TOP"> <FONT SIZE=2><P>Cell 3</FONT></TD> <TD WIDTH="50%" VALIGN="TOP"> <FONT SIZE=2><P>Cell 4</FONT></TD> </TR> </TABLE> <FONT SIZE=2></FONT></BODY> </HTML> The former was hand coded by me and validates 100% (and that's against the Strict DTD). The latter was created in Word by starting a brand new document, creating a 2 x 2 table and entering the cell contents. I then immediately saved as HTML. Aside from taking an extra 100 bytes or so, it has 2 types of error when validated and specifies a Windows character set depite only containing 7 standard ASCII characters in its output. Oh, and those errors are against the transitional DTD - which is far more relaxed. Anyone using FONT tags today should be taken out into the woods and sh....(...own the correct way). And yes, I know the two pages look different, but with less code I solved the original poster's problem and if one were fussy about the width then a simple ";width:568px" added to the TABLE style would fix the only fundamental difference (actually, *I* think mine looks better anyway). That's my concern. -- Cheers, Allister ________________________________________________ Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
