I am trying to make a site that looks like it has tables. But, I was browsing around on google looking for some examples and I ran up on some site that said, " Webpages without tables" . I read up and it said that people that wanted the frame look started using tables . But now there is an easier way to do it without using tables? I am confused. Anyone know what this means? Also anyone have some really good links for tuts?
What is a site without tables?
| ultraman wrote: |
| I am trying to make a site that looks like it has tables. But, I was browsing around on google looking for some examples and I ran up on some site that said, " Webpages without tables" . I read up and it said that people that wanted the frame look started using tables . But now there is an easier way to do it without using tables? I am confused. Anyone know what this means? Also anyone have some really good links for tuts? |
I is battle table vs. div+css. Table are so what you make them be, but div can be modified with css so that they could be anywhere, also in same place as it would be a table cell. In CSSZengarden are nice examples, how to use div with css.
Thank you . I will be checking that out. Thanks again. Also I have seen sites that have the tables and the table in the middle changes only. Like when you click on the nav links .I will give an example : http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_formatting.asp
just click on a link and watch how nothing changes except the middle table. How is that . A script?
just click on a link and watch how nothing changes except the middle table. How is that . A script?
| ultraman wrote: |
| Thank you . I will be checking that out. Thanks again. Also I have seen sites that have the tables and the table in the middle changes only. Like when you click on the nav links .I will give an example : http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_formatting.asp
just click on a link and watch how nothing changes except the middle table. How is that . A script? |
The other tables don't change, but they aren't any different, they are reloaded. Unlike a frame where the outside is one address, and the inside is a new one and only the inside is loaded, in this one everything is loaded, just each page has the "sidebar code" I believe.
The way I know of doing that is using a PHP script to include an external file, such as navigation.html like so:
And you put that on every page, where you want the navigation to be. Then when you change someing in the navigation.html file, all the pages change as well. You could also use frames, but this way is much better.
| Code: |
|
<?php require("navigation.html"); ?> |
And you put that on every page, where you want the navigation to be. Then when you change someing in the navigation.html file, all the pages change as well. You could also use frames, but this way is much better.
| ultraman wrote: |
| I am trying to make a site that looks like it has tables. But, I was browsing around on google looking for some examples and I ran up on some site that said, " Webpages without tables" . I read up and it said that people that wanted the frame look started using tables . But now there is an easier way to do it without using tables? I am confused. Anyone know what this means? Also anyone have some really good links for tuts? |
It's better to use with tables. Contents like images and text that are not enclosed in tables tend to loose and break up when viewed in a small frame or window. Thus it look weird. Websites without tables is possible, but it depends on your sites look and feel.
| riv wrote: | ||
The way I know of doing that is using a PHP script to include an external file, such as navigation.html like so:
And you put that on every page, where you want the navigation to be. Then when you change someing in the navigation.html file, all the pages change as well. You could also use frames, but this way is much better. |
Server Side Includes (SSI) Work for this purpose on HTML files.
| Code: |
| <?php require("navagation.html"); ?> |
Whats the difference between Require and include? I always use this code:
| Code: |
| <?php include("links.txt"); ?>
or <?php include('$news'); ?> |
my page, http://wowchaos.frih.net doesnt use tables, it uses css to replace it, but, frankly, I would reccomend tables to begin with and play with css on the side, and implement what you know as you go... Also, its true that the stuff can break up in small windows without tables, but its the same with tables
Personally I PREFER non tables, but best way to learn it is taking it slowly, take it from tables to tables + css, then to pure css (That is, if you want)... My advice, you dont have to take it It's just what i did thanks guys I am going to try that . I found some neat tuturials around the web. I was doing the tables but, then css looked easier. And the <div> tag for html and make an id and link the css to it.
you guys can check it out if yall want at unanimous.frih.net , but I only have one page and really no content on it. but the names of the divides I did .
you guys can check it out if yall want at unanimous.frih.net , but I only have one page and really no content on it. but the names of the divides I did .
| Enderwiggin wrote: | ||||
Whats the difference between Require and include? I always use this code:
my page, http://wowchaos.frih.net doesnt use tables, it uses css to replace it, but, frankly, I would reccomend tables to begin with and play with css on the side, and implement what you know as you go... Also, its true that the stuff can break up in small windows without tables, but its the same with tables Personally I PREFER non tables, but best way to learn it is taking it slowly, take it from tables to tables + css, then to pure css (That is, if you want)... My advice, you dont have to take it It's just what i did |
The difference between "include" and "require" is that instead of rendering the website and have an error where the included text would go, the "require" would just show an error page saying that the document isn't found if (guess what?) the document isn't found. I prefer the "require" better than the "include," but it really is your choice.
And I do think you should use CSS instead of tables, because of numerous reasons I won't take my time to explain, and I definitely have done my site in CSS instead of using tables (check out the 'www' link under my signature). Check out the CSS Zen Garden for great examples of creating table-like pages using css. http://www.csszengarden.com. I learned a lot of things by sorting through other people's css code.
I prefer to use css instead of tables. I actualy never learned how to use tables and run a decent web site. Novis Design. You can check it out there and see the source.
Yes, there are several technologies that can be used. CSS + DIV is a bit tricky in Dreamweaver MX because you don΄t get what you see. Divisions are shown at the wrong places unless you use the option to show in Internet Explorer.
So you are editing the page seeing divisions at wrong places and jumping to Internet and Dreamweaver continuously.
But some say it's the best solution.
Other solutions are frames (each division is a file and there is a file to call all the files), and tables: the layout is divided in table cells filled with content. Both these technologies work well with Dreamweaver MX.
Hope this message gave you another insight about such strategies.
For me it's hard to make a choice, but CSS+DIV seems better because some technical issues are solved. But this technmology requires some proper knowledge.
By the way, Flash's another alternative, but has special targets (animation and games) and is often poor for showing content for people with disabilities. That is a problem I see in many pages where the font is too small and can't get bigger. Is this minimalism ideas? So minimum that even content is left aside.
So you are editing the page seeing divisions at wrong places and jumping to Internet and Dreamweaver continuously.
But some say it's the best solution.
Other solutions are frames (each division is a file and there is a file to call all the files), and tables: the layout is divided in table cells filled with content. Both these technologies work well with Dreamweaver MX.
Hope this message gave you another insight about such strategies.
For me it's hard to make a choice, but CSS+DIV seems better because some technical issues are solved. But this technmology requires some proper knowledge.
By the way, Flash's another alternative, but has special targets (animation and games) and is often poor for showing content for people with disabilities. That is a problem I see in many pages where the font is too small and can't get bigger. Is this minimalism ideas? So minimum that even content is left aside.
Tables vs css positioning. No debate for me but still the debate rages on. Using tables nestedin table nested in tables can get quite tedious and maintaing the code can be a nightmare.
Those of you that use Wysiwyg editors can just skip over this, you're not really coders after all, are you?
The other day a friend of mine that makes very pretty websites in a wysiwyg application was havng trouble with a table cell width. He asked me to take a look because it was css related. Fisrt had to find the code, 27, repeat, 27 nested tables!?!?!? after two hours of cleaning the code up so it was indented and readable and table start and end tags identifyable we found the little menu width that threw every thing out of wack.
Nice.
When coding a table formatted page things can get quite out of hand, pages can lose flow or format out of the view port a single problem inside a cell inside a table inside a cell inside a table inside... impossible (or so difficult and time-consuming I prefer to scrap the page and start over using css!) to figure out.
Using css to postion elements in a page requires a pit of practice and it may be smart to start off with relativly simple layouts. Once you getthe hang of it the pages seem to fly together much quicker and the layout is much more flexible. Don;t like that menu on the left? change a left margin from 160px to 40, a right margin from 40 to 169 then anohter left margin to right. done!
want it to be horizontal instead of vertical? change a width attribute. change the top left nd right figures and youve got a whole new layout.
build several files, each with a "master" div in it and include them in several file with different color, positioning and dimensions you've got completely unique looks for each page/site.
Tables have there place and can sometimes help with minor elements that are difficult to render correctly but for a master layou for a page css positioning and dimensions are the way to go.
many folks complain of the differences in how browsers handle css what directives or attributes are supprted and n what manner. Tables are as problemmatic but with less features and possible combinations appear to be less so. Table are weak, limited in possibliites difficult to maintain.
Learn css after a few pages of coding you'll be very glad yo did.
Those of you that use Wysiwyg editors can just skip over this, you're not really coders after all, are you?
The other day a friend of mine that makes very pretty websites in a wysiwyg application was havng trouble with a table cell width. He asked me to take a look because it was css related. Fisrt had to find the code, 27, repeat, 27 nested tables!?!?!? after two hours of cleaning the code up so it was indented and readable and table start and end tags identifyable we found the little menu width that threw every thing out of wack.
Nice.
When coding a table formatted page things can get quite out of hand, pages can lose flow or format out of the view port a single problem inside a cell inside a table inside a cell inside a table inside... impossible (or so difficult and time-consuming I prefer to scrap the page and start over using css!) to figure out.
Using css to postion elements in a page requires a pit of practice and it may be smart to start off with relativly simple layouts. Once you getthe hang of it the pages seem to fly together much quicker and the layout is much more flexible. Don;t like that menu on the left? change a left margin from 160px to 40, a right margin from 40 to 169 then anohter left margin to right. done!
want it to be horizontal instead of vertical? change a width attribute. change the top left nd right figures and youve got a whole new layout.
build several files, each with a "master" div in it and include them in several file with different color, positioning and dimensions you've got completely unique looks for each page/site.
Tables have there place and can sometimes help with minor elements that are difficult to render correctly but for a master layou for a page css positioning and dimensions are the way to go.
many folks complain of the differences in how browsers handle css what directives or attributes are supprted and n what manner. Tables are as problemmatic but with less features and possible combinations appear to be less so. Table are weak, limited in possibliites difficult to maintain.
Learn css after a few pages of coding you'll be very glad yo did.
 |