delete the damn space god dammit

[Dusty]

Oh, of course you can always put the form outside of the outer table. If you can, that is. In some layouts, particularly those with multiple forms in the same table, that's just not possible without creating an unwanted gap between elements. Even in Weapon's situation, if he wanted the space between the mailing list table and the advertisement table to be exactly so-and-so pixels high (i.e. using a transparent GIF given just the right height), a closing <form> tag could throw things out of alignment. Not saying that he does, but he could.

I've always strongly recommended against all CSS save its most basic uses. It just introduces too much browser variation for my taste. I try to do everything in plain HTML when I can. Plain HTML like <form> tags stuck between the <table> and <tr> tags (or between two <tr>'s or <td>'s, whatever fits the situation), which introduces no incompatibility between browsers (even browsers like Mozilla where the proper way works, this improper way works just as well).

And I agree with both you and Lucifer when it comes to FrontPage.

 

[Weapon]

I have mate using dreamweaver now, meoooooooohhhhhhhh, oh my gosh meow just got spanked

 

[meow]

Does your mate spank you? Huh, oh, well, ahem...

 

[meow]

Originally posted by Dusty

but this is not true in Weapon's case (which, after all, is the supposed "topic" of the thread).

You said it yourself.

My point was that it's unessecary to make someone (weapon) believe that tricks are needed to make a page display as intended. I'm sure there are cases where the standard way won't work, but that's hardly the case here.

We have different views on CSS. To me it's an opportunity to make the page work well for more people not fewer. We don't think the same way - that's life.

 

[Dusty]

You said it yourself.

Ah, but the original two options did not include putting the form outside both tables, only outside the inner one or inside it. Therefore, I'm right . Actually I didn't even consider putting it outside of both, that probably is the best solution. I posted the first message before even looking at Weapon's page. You must admit, though, my and Lucifer's way will work.

We have different views on CSS. To me it's an opportunity to make the page work well for more people not fewer. We don't think the same way - that's life.

Then we agree to disagree. I can live with that.

Weapon:
I have mate using dreamweaver now, meoooooooohhhhhhhh, who spank me

I'm going to attempt to translate that, and then I'll reply:

Via a good friend of mine I am now using Macromedia's Dreamweaver rather than Microsoft's FrontPage, Meow. Who will now spank me?

I'm a little unclear as to the meaning of that last line, but, um... I call "not it".

 

[meow]

*lol*
The outer table o my page is just for the presentation, it isn't involved.
Oh well, the important thing is that weep-on gets spanked.

 

[Weapon]

Originally posted by meow
Does your mate spank you? Huh, oh, well, ahem...

just makin mockery of ya name rephrased, meooohhhhhh who spank thee kitten?

 

[lucifer]

Meow your way may be better HTML but mine sorted the problem!

there is alway's more than one way to achieve things. I admire your desire to try to teach weep-on best practice but with so many shagged browsers around in many ways it's just academic

ditch f/p it's a big piece of crap and anyone who says otherwise is braindead