| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
<Kazero> Ok, problem.
<Kazero> How can I make a div min height touch the bottom of the window, and continue further down if the content needs it to?
<mattmcc> Well, CSS defines this quite simply. The down side is IE support, or the lack thereof.
<Kazero> mattmcc: Yes, min-height. Any hacks?
<krisp> 'lo guys
<Kazero> hi
<krisp> anyone know any good pocket pc channels?
<Jan`> hihi all
<riczho> Hi!
<Kazero> I swear, im going to resort to tables
<riczho> Nooooo!!
<Kazero> At least tables will work in all browsers and look the same
<ptlis> Kazero, once you get in the CSS mindset the initial frustrations and time spent on learing how to do things pay dividends.
<noss> Kazero: yes, there is a hack for IE to do min-height.
<riczho> Height = min-height, according to IE.
<riczho> So use an IE conditional comment or something to specify a min-height.
<Kazero> Do a what now?
<Kazero> I have 2 problems now
<Kazero> One is that the floated div wont stretch 100% height of its container, but is doing 100% of the screen height instead
<riczho> Do you have a URL?
<Jan`> Resort to tables.
<Jan`> For some really stupid reason, it's really really difficult to do certain "table" things in DIVs.
<Jan`> I consider this to be a pretty big oversight in the spec, but whatever.
<riczho> Nooooo!!
<riczho> Tables only for tabular data!
<riczho> CSS isn't hard... it just takes some time to learn!
<Jan`> I didn't say it was hard.
<Jan`> I said it was incapable of doing certain table-style things without ludicrous complexity.
<riczho> That was more of an "inspirational" statement.
<Kazero> Im not saying I dont know basic CSS, im saying that its near impossible to do what I want because the min-height command and the height command are diffrent in IE and other browsers
<Jan`> Kazero, just use tables. It is possible to emulate most table functionality in DIVs, but it isn't worth it.
<riczho> Yes it is!
<Jan`> Not just for the sake of doing it a certain way because that way's "better".
<riczho> Easier to change.
<riczho> (Generally) better search engine rankins.
<Kazero> Jan`: Thats the position I was trying to defend 2 days ago, and I got flamed from hell
<Jan`> Balls.
<riczho> Overall cleanness, accessibility..
<Jan`> Kazero: The people you were talking to were hobby programmers who've never had to produce a real website.
<Kazero> Using 1 table set is just as clean as using 3 div sets to get the same layout buddy.
<Jan`> Back in realityville, we do whatever gets the job done most efficiently.
<Jan`> Exactly.
<ptlis> It does make it easier when you document is well structured to use CSS to drastically change a page layout without touching markup.
<Jan`> Having four times the code density just to avoid tables is insane.
<ptlis> Once agian, i'd give an example if my personal site was online.
<riczho> Try making a layout change to a table layout!
<riczho> See how long THAT takes..
<Kazero> http://www.andrewcharron.com/incom/beta/v3b/2.html
<Kazero> You can see my 2 problems
<Jan`> Mostly I'm writing tables in PHP that get poked by JS.
<riczho> And you're saying that CSS is larger than table layouts?
<riczho> Because that depends largely on the complexity of a site.
<Kazero> riczho: Considering im starting over, not long
<Jan`> But even if you aren't doing that, unless you just choose to arbitrarily indent them, there's no particular advantage to DIVs over TDs.
<Kazero> If I cant get this fixed in the next 10 minutes, im moving to tables.
<Jan`> Just do it in tables. It's not worth pissing about with.
<Jan`> There is no inherent disadvantage to it.
<Kazero> Sometimes CSS validity is rediculous.
<Darien> ridiculous
<Jan`> Tables are not invalid in any worthwhile standard.
<Kazero> Consider this: You cant use tables because tables were meant for tabular data. But you can use ordered lists for links.
<Darien> tables are not invalid in any standard
<Kazero> Oh the irony
<Windrose> Kazero: you might want to reconsider your idea of "work the same in all browsers", as it won't. Tables will work -as tables- in sensible browsers, but not necessarily for layout.
<riczho> When I use an ordered list of links, I have a list of links.
<Windrose> Kazero: why is that ironic? You do not consider lists of links lists?
<Jan`> Windrose, the table layout is more consistent than interpretation of min-height and min-width
<Darien> I don't use a list if I only have one
<Kazero> Because it isnt a list when its horizontal
<riczho> Yes it is.
<ptlis> It is a list still.
<Kazero> Anyways, my taco's are ready. Ill argue again when im done eating
<Windrose> Kazero: isn't it? "1, 3, 5, 6" is still a -list-. The rendering is a different issue.
<Kazero> brb
<ptlis> Orientation does not change the data structure.
<Jan`> I think the operative point her eis that tables are mature, and DIVs arent. Still aren't.
<ptlis> divs are perfectly mature.
<ptlis> His issue is not with the div. It's with CSS rules applied to that element.
<ptlis> Fairly large distinction there.
<Jan`> Pedantry, whatever
<ptlis> Can't help that, it's my nature.
<Jan`> How often do I find myself using a primitive solution to a coding problem because I know it'll work, it'll take les stime to write, and it'll be easier to work with in the future.
<Jan`> Then all the geeks squeal.
<riczho> Tables are easier to work with???
<Jan`> It's insane. What's the point of code; to look pretty or to do a job?
<ptlis> I don't know, how often do you find yourself using a primitive solution to a coding problem because I know it'll work, it'll take les stime to write, and it'll be easier to work with in the future.
<ptlis> Both :)
<riczho> HAHA!! Like I said, any layout changes force you to weed through tens of colspans and rowspans...
<Jan`> You're nuts if you use them
<riczho> To do a job... and be easily maintainable... and work well.
<Jan`> Can't think I ever have need to.
<ptlis> Personally I prefer to do a task correctly first time even if it takes longer than reuse the code & lessons learnt later.
<riczho> I agree with that.
<ptlis> I feel that most of the time I make a net gain in efficiency when looking over the long run.
<Jan`> So do I, but your implication is that people avoid the more technically correct solutions because they don't know what they're doing.
<Jan`> My position is that they're doing it the most effective way, as opposed to the most pedantically ideal way.
<ptlis> Of course, there are exceptions. Thowaway scripts written hurridly for a single task only to be discarded.
<Windrose> Hm. Yes. Sounds like he is correct.
<Jan`> Once again the only question is "what is the purpose of code."
<riczho> No, they're doing in such a way that it would be maintainable.
<riczho> And accessible.
<Darien> that's kind of a philosophical question
<riczho> It has to work, but look nice enough to be worked on.
<ptlis> For me?
<ptlis> To be payed to do something I enjoy.
<ptlis> And I do not enjoy (ugly) hackish solutions.
<riczho> And maintainers hate them too!
<Jan`> This is a great counterexample, though.
<Jan`> Doing a table's job in a DIV leads to horribly bloated code.
<riczho> What? A one-use website
<Darien> this is not a table's job
<Jan`> Depending, obviously, on what particular table characteristics you might want.
<riczho> Well, we know what a table's job is: To hold tabular data.
<Windrose> Of course. You shouldn't implement tables with divs - the latter have no semantic interpretation.
<Windrose> Or, rather: they have no pre-defined, agreed upon, semantic interpretation.
<Jan`> There's some kind of received wisdom that tables shouldn't be used for layout.
<Jan`> Part of my frustration with this is that tables had been used for layout for years, and then they were "replaced" (according to Dr. Nobody) by something which didn't do that job.
<riczho> How were tables replaced?
<Jan`> You can define better ways to do things, but it takes real arrogance to question established practice.
<riczho> Their job was to hold tabular data.
<Jan`> Yes, but they were being used for other kinds of layout as well/.
<Windrose> Since tables didn't do the job either, the illusion was simply so very sweet, I don't see what your complaint is.
<Jan`> Now if you try to do that sort of layout, you get yelled at for no reason.
<riczho> Yes, they were being used for something that isn't their job.
<Jan`> There is nothing wrong with using them that way.
<Mordof> using them in a layout?
<Jan`> You can geek out on your techno-pedantic objections all you like, but there's no actual, real-world problem with using tables as a layout device.
<Mordof> i dont like it when i end up coming in into the middle of an interesting conversation :(
<riczho> Semantically incorrect, less accessible, more difficult to maintain. These arguments have been said over and over without any response!
<Jan`> "semantically incorrect" is a meaningless piece of pedantry.
<Mordof> takes more space and bandwidth on the server having table layouts :P
<riczho> Mordof: Basically, Jan` is trying to make a case for using tables for layout.
<Jan`> It doesn't actually matter in the real world.
<Mordof> which is unethical
<Mordof> yes it does jan
<riczho> Search engines like semantic layout!
<Jan`> No. To emulate certain pieces of table functionality requires enormous amounts of CSS.
<Mordof> layouts made entirely from tables effect bandwidth usage directly
<Mordof> theres a fine line between when to use tables and when to use css
<Jan`> Nested DIVs, etc, which also makes it hard to script.
<riczho> Table functionality isn't emulated in CSS! Table function is to hold tabular data!
<Mordof> if you know how to use css properly you rarely have to use tables except for tabular data
<riczho> And how are nested divs harder to script?
<Jan`> As I was saying earlier, it's nothing to do with knowing how to do it properly.
<Mordof> <div><div></div></div> oh no! a nested div >.<
<riczho> Because nested tables are the same thing, except that there are <td> and <tr> instead of just one.
<Jan`> Support of things like min-height and min-width aside, it's just much more code to deal with.
<riczho> Now THAT'S hard to script and/or write/maintain.
<riczho> And just curious: how would you do min-height with tables?
<Jan`> I appreciate you linux types love code and find it ***ually stimulating, but some of us just need to get the job done, eh?
Return to web
or
Go to some related
logs:
archlinux
spurven.d
metal
|
|