Table Rounded Corners

[LeX]

No, but you're suggesting others do it.

That's right, but I wasn't forcing them to use it, was I? I never said you had to do it the same way as I.

You've already given a similar example and, as I asked in reply to it, four additional images make it cluttered how?

If you have multiple rounded tables, it will become cluttered. The reason I call it cluttered is because that's exactly what happened to my code when I used <IMG> for the corners of all my round-corner tables. Like I said, everything I'm saying here is based on my own experiences. You might not have any problems with your code, but I did. It was hard to find stuff.

You didn't read what I said and apparently you didn't read what you said either. If the cell is too small for a character (&amp;nbsp; is a character), which you said writing things overtop of the corners in this example wasn't possible, then you must use a single pixel image, which completely destroys your "clutter" theory.

Look, Dusty... I never suggested that you add text or images on top of a rounded corner cell in the first place. You somehow misinterpreted what I said and concluded that I was suggesting you add text or images on top of a rounded corner cell, but I never said that. What I said was that you could add text and/or images on top of a background image, which is better than not being able to at all. I suggested you add the &nbsp; after you wrote "In fact, even if you use a background instead of an image, you're still going to need to insert images into the cells because, despite you're assertion that you can just use a background in Netscape, you're wrong. Netscape, not even version 6, will not render an empty table cell. You must put something in it if you want it to show up and if the cell is too small for a character you've got to use a transparent 1? pixel image." There's still no talk about rounded-corner cells, which is why I told you to include &nbsp;.

As I said, I realize few people still use those very old browsers but still, those few do. Why do something that will single them out when it's just as easy to do something that will include them?

This would be a great way of encouraging those poor souls to upgrade. j/k Those gay old browsers can't render modern HTML coding, so I see absolutely no point in taking time to make things look like it should for them. They're outdated, and they need to upgrade. That's that. The thing we should focus on now is to make our site cross-browser compatible, not backwards compatible for outdated browsers.

I said nothing about backgrounds in general, only rounded-cornner backgrounds.

That's not what I saw (see above). ps: it's corner

I've still yet to come up with a single scenario where something would actually need to be written over a small image of a rounded-corner.

I have. Which is why I prefer rounded corner images to be background images instead of normal images.

All we're talking about are rounded-corners, introducing an argument for the benefits of backgrounds in general is irrelevant. I've not denounced all backgrounds, I'm just pointing out that using a background in place of a rounded-corner image is pointless.

No it's not pointless. Argument above.

Plus, when using a background in a normal table, you can also specify a background color, so for those with very old browsers the page degrades better. You can't do that using a rounded-corner background, it would just look like a rectangle with chunks taken out of its corners.

How is that exactly? I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about... and like I said above, we need not care for the poor people still using freakin outdated browsers.

What? A huge rounded-corner on the lower-right side of the table with a subtitle written over it? That can be done without using a background image

Unity is the key word here. If you use background images at the top, why not go ahead and use the same code for the bottom background images? I see no problem with that, plus that makes your code less cluttered.

Isn't it better to teach Phuzion the best way now and let him come back for more help if the situation should ever arise that he'd need to use a background in the corner of a table?

Anybody with decent knowledge of HTML should know that you can place anything in cells like you do without tables. And IMO my way is the best way. It works, and you can easily modify it later on in case you ever have the need to add stuff to the corners. This can also set an example for all other normal table cells, not just limited to corners.

Adding four images clutters the code but nesting multiple tables doesn't?

You're completely off the track. Where did you come up with that idea? You've misread my post... look it over again.

What is your definition of "clutter", Lex?

if you're going to nest multiple tables, the background image code would be a lot less cluttered than the normal image code.

'Twouldn't be a background image, it would be a regular image. If you want to have another image over top of the corner image, why not just make the two the same image and spare the visitor having to download two?

Time saving, less work and more disk space is taken into consideration here. This has to do with graphic making, we'll discuss it later if you wish.

It is the same thing, Mr. Imafriggenmoron .

No it's not, Mr. IamfreakinstubbornandcantacceptotherpeoplesopinionsandImustmakethemacceptmyconceptorelseIwillkeeponarguingnonesense.

Anyway, it has the same meaning. Saying a background image is "just as useful" as an image without anything backing either of them up is the same as saying it's "just useful".

Mr. English teacher, have you ever learned English? "Just useful" isn't the same thing as "just as useful". The meanings are completely different... oh, geez, I need someone who can explain this grammar thing, I don't know how to explain it. Go ask your English teacher if you're still in school, Dusty.

You're comparing one unsubstantiated thing to another in an attempt to give it value. In other words, if you don't like it the way it's written, just add "as" in your mind, same meaning.

I never thought I would ever have a need for my English teacher...

If you don't argue for your arguments don't you think they sort of loose what merit they might of had to start with?

Simply because there was nothing to argue about. I still don't understand why you have to make such a big deal out of it. Heck, it's just my personal opinions, a way of coding based on my own experiences, and you had to go and attack every part of it and force me to give "arguments" about something that's not argumental. There's more than one way of skinning a cat, I never said that my way was the only way of doing it, you are always welcome to show off your way of doing it, but no, instead, you chose to pick at my code and pointlessly debate about it with me.

What exactly are you trying to prove? That my way of doing it is not remotely perfect? The guy asked for a way of rounding the corners of tables, and I suggested my way of doing it. You could have posted your own piece of code too, but did you? Did you?!?

But in this situation, there is another way to do it that won't exclude the old and obscure browsers,

So why didn't you express your way of doing it?

if you make it incompatible with them you're doing it on purpose.

How dare you accuse me of doing anything "on purpose"? I'm sorry, but if Netscape 0.000012892328 can't render my code that has no errors in it, that's Netscape's own problem. I have absolutely no need to adjust my coding just to make it look perfect for an outdated browser that nobody's using anymore.

If you care so much about those old browser users (who in the world still uses them anyway?!), then you can make your own site backwards compatible all you want.

 

[Dusty]

I love arguments where the two involved will never admit they're wrong, they stretch on and on forever and ever.

I haven't been correcting you in my quotes, be since you did me I'll start.

That's right, but I wasn't forcing them to use it, was I? I never said you had to do it the same way as I.

"...as me", Lex, you're in the accusative case, not nominative.

If you have multiple rounded tables, it will become cluttered.

<img src=image.gif> = 19 characters
background=image.gif = 20 characters

<td><img src=image.gif></td> = 28 characters
<td background=image.gif>&amp;nbsp;</td> = 36 characters

...and that's my last word on the clutter matter.

I never suggested that you add text or images on top of a rounded corner cell in the first place ... you could add text and/or images on top of a background image, which is better than not being able to at all ... [t]here's still no talk about rounded-corner cells

I'm-- go--ing to-- try to-- stay-- calm... THE WHOLE DAMN THREAD'S ABOUT ROUNDED-CORNERS, LEX! THE WHOLE DAMN THING!!! READ THE SUBJECT, LEX, "TABLE ROUNDED CORNERS", NOT "TELL ME THE PROS AND CONS OF USING A BACKGROUND IMAGE IN A TABLE CELL"!!!!!! Whew, sorry about that. Anyway, as I so plainly said in my last post, "All we're talking about are rounded-corners, introducing an argument for the benefits of backgrounds in general is irrelevant".

Those gay old browsers can't render modern HTML coding, so I see absolutely no point in taking time to make things look like it should for them. They're outdated, and they need to upgrade. That's that. The thing we should focus on now is to make our site cross-browser compatible, not backwards compatible for outdated browsers.

"...things look like they should...", "things" is plural.

We should be focusing on making our websites as widely accessible as possible, that includes backward compatibility, but, it doesn't end there. You said cross-browser compatible. That's important too. What works the same in all browsers, IE and NS, new and old? I'll give you a hint, it's not backgrounds.

I have [found a situation where one would need to use a background image as a rounded corner because something needs be written over top of it]

And what, pray tell, is that?

No it's not pointless [arguing an irrelevant topic]

"No, it's not pointless"

The topic of this thread are rounded corners in tables and how to make them. That's not just the topic of our argument, it's the topic of the whole thread. What does touting the benefits of a background in a regular, rectangular table have at all to do with the use of backgrounds to make rounded-corners?

How is that exactly? I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about... and like I said above, we need not care for the poor people still using freakin outdated browsers.

"...freakin'..."

Your background argument sidetracked me. I was saying that, when using a background in a normal table, you can also specify a background color. This means that while modern browsers see your pretty picture, old browsers at least see some color. However, you can't do that with a corner. If you don't specify a background color, the corners of your table just look like they've had chunks taken out of them (imagine the bottom of a shirt box with its sides cut lying flat on the floor). If you did specify a background color, then it would just be rectangular, no special corners at all. A plain old image alleviates all of this.

Unity is the key word here. If you use background images at the top, why not go ahead and use the same code for the bottom background images? I see no problem with that, plus that makes your code less cluttered.

I'm not going to go near the clutter thing again. Unity? My example used no background images, I'd say that's unified. If you use a background image for the bottom, why not use one for the top? By that same token, why not do away with all your images and use nothing but backgrounds, gotta keep the page unified.

Anybody with decent knowledge of HTML should know that you can place anything in cells like you do without tables

What? You mind running that by once more, it didn't make any sense. You can place anything in a cell in the same way you can place things without tables, what does that mean?

...easily modify it later on in case you ever have the need to add stuff to the corners

You can easily modify my version, too. It's a one-step process called "edit the image".

You're completely off the track. Where did you come up with that idea?

I didn't misread your post. I said, and I quote, "[w]hen using an image the cell your text goes in is nicely framed, sort of a built-in margin", you said "make another table inside the cell with a cellpadding that's greater than 2". I asked how you thought adding four images to an already existing table clutters the code whereas adding four backgrounds and a totally new table doesn't.

Time saving

Yes, the time saved in making two images over just one is truly amazing.

less work

Isn't that essentially the same argument? If it's less work, you're saving time, if you're saving time, it must be less work.

more disk space

Two images take less space than one?

Mr. IamfreakinstubbornandcantacceptotherpeoplesopinionsandImustmakethemacceptmyconceptorelseIwillkeeponarguingnonesense.

I'm arguing nonsense? Yes, you're background scheme is making so much sense that my straigt-forward and obvious images solution pales in comparison. Stop hiding behind an opinion, say what you think and stand by it, too many people make the "you can't deny me my opinion" excuse.

"Just useful" isn't the same thing as "just as useful"

In this context, Lex, the mean the same thing. They aren't the same thing, no, but in this context they mean the same thing.

What exactly are you trying to prove? That my way of doing it is not remotely perfect? The guy asked for a way of rounding the corners of tables, and I suggested my way of doing it. You could have posted your own piece of code too, but did you? Did you?!?

Of course it's not remotely perfect, but that's not the point. I'm trying to figure out why anyone would want to make the corners of a table rounded by means of a background. In fact, what was my opening statement? "[W]hat's the point in having it in the background?" Did I say how I would do it? Yes, in fact, I did. "Why not just use four regular images".

So why didn't you express your way of doing it

Perhaps you should re-read the first page, Lex. I think I made it clear (and I hope I'm still making it clear) that I think images are a better solution than backgrounds.

How dare you accuse me of doing anything "on purpose"

What the hell do you call purposefully doing something to make the page incompatible with one browser or another? An intentional accident? A foreknown oversight? If you doing something consciously knowing its implications you're doing it on purpose.

 

[LeX]

That's it, meow... I'm going to do exactly what you said you were gonna do.

 

[LeX]

I'll say one last on the the "cluttered" matter.

I wasn't talking about the number of characters (and besides, you didn't define the width and height of the cells in your code). I was talking about the lines it would take and how long each line would be opposed to one single line that takes care of everything. Like I said, I've tried using the rounded corners as normal images before and I ended up with a hopelessly cluttered code, I could hardly find my way aronud it. It was much better after I cleaned it up by replacing the normal images with the background image code.

Now I'm gonna start going on the meow campaign.

 

[Dusty]

Last word minus one on the "clutter" matter because it seems to be the basis of your whole argument.

You're right, in yours you have to specify the height and width of the table cell, In my version, the cell will just resize to fit the image if you leave them out.

<td><img src=image.gif></td>

<td width=5 height=5 background=image.gif><img src=pixel.gif></td>

I see! Yours is only one line whereas mine is... oh, scratch that. Ah, mines 28 characters long but yours is much shorter at just 76... uhm, never mind. Ooh, yours is... um, but mine is... no... hmm.

 

[LeX]

One last word on this subject and I'm through, since it's no use arguing with stubborn people (GC is the other one).

If you really want to make a good page, it's basically impossible to make it backward compatible with older browsers that don't support many of the new features like CSS and DHTML etc. So. If a browser can't keep up with the renovations, sorry, you're out. No new technology support, no use at all.

And Dusty, your way has its advantages, but mine has more IMO. You just can't understand it since you obviously haven't come to the case where you need the advantages of my method, so you go right on and use your way, and I'll use mine.

And you still don't understand what I meant by "cluttered". But it's okay, I know everyone has their own limitations.

 

[Dusty]

You're bringing more irrelevant material into the argument again, Lex. CSS and DHTML have absolutely nothing to do with using a background image to make a table with rounded-corners. Furthermore, they don't even support the side argument of backward compatibility because once again you've failed to read what I said. When using something that requires DHTML you are forced to make the page incompatible with older browsers (though you should still offer an alternative, but I gather from the way you talk here that you don't much care about your visitors), but with rounded-corners you don't have to. Did you catch it that time? You don't have to, if you do, you're choosing to make the page incompatible, you're not forced. That's the difference. If you can just as easily make something backward compatible without loosing any of its effect at all, why ever would you not?

Your method has more benefits? Such as? You certainly haven't presented any here. Show us an example, Lex. I don't want any hypothetical crap, I want an actual example where a background must be used to achieve a rounded-corner effect.

What the bloody hell is your definition of "clutter"? All you've said was that yours didn't need to use an <img> tag (which it actually does in most cases). I see this:

<td width=5 height=5 background=image.gif>
<img src=pixel.gif>
</td>

...as being no less cluttered than this:

<td>
<img src=image.gif>
</td>

In fact, it's more cluttered. Quite a bit, really.

Are you trying to say less eye appealing? I don't agree with you if you are, but at least I'd be somewhat able to see where you're coming from.

I'm stubborn? Perhaps, I will admit that I don't easily concede to foolishness.

 

[LeX]

I didn't suggest you include the pixel pic, you did.

The reason I don't care about old browsers is because they can't support the CSS and DHTML of today, so that's why I brought it up. Simple.

I don't have the cluttered code obviously since I've already replaced it with background images a long time ago.

Foolish? Call it whatever you want. *shrugs*

I'm not going to waste my time arguing anymore, so you don't have to bother replying to this. You may if you wish, but I'm not. Bye!

 

[Dusty]

I didn't suggest you include the pixel pic, you did.

You claimed, wrongly, that Netscape would render an empty table cell. I corrected you, you followed up saying that you could put a &amp;nbsp; in the cell. I said that most rounded-corners are going to be too small to fit a character, any character, in. I then explained that you'd have to use, in most situations, a small, one-pixel transparent image. This, until now, you did not deny. Tell me, Lex. The cell is too small for a character and you don't want to "clutter" your code with an image. How do you make the cell render?

(By the way, replace the image with a &amp;nbsp; and yours still comes out longer)

The reason I don't care about old browsers is because they can't support the CSS and DHTML of today, so that's why I brought it up. Simple.

You brought it up as a distraction from the argument because at this point all you seem to be doing is grasping at straws. As I've twice already said anything not related to rounding the corners of tables is an irrelevant argument. I won't deny that you've brought up a lot of arguments, but very few (I'm counting one, perhaps two) actually relate to your method of using a background image instead of a normal image to make a rounded-end.

I don't have the cluttered code obviously since I've already replaced it with background images a long time ago.

Stop skirting the question, Lex. What are you trying to saying by "clutter"? You don't need to be in possession of "cluttered" code to know what it is. Where is your example of a table with rounded-corners that can't be made using regular images? I didn't ask for one that could, I asked for a table that had to use a background image for its corners. You say clutter doesn't mean length, it doesn't mean how many lines (it briefly did, "...I was talking about the lines it would take and how long each line would be...", until I showed how both of them could written on one line and yours turns out much longer, then you changed your story), it doesn't mean how complex it is, it apparently doesn't mean how it looks since you didn't answer my question on whether you meant "eye appealing", what do you mean? Very simple question that I've been asking since my second or third post but you've still not answered it.

Foolish? Call it whatever you want.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em, just stating the obvious. You suggest someone use four background images to round-off the corners of his tables. I question it, pointing out its numerous flaws, and propose a far better and much more widely used solution. Your only on-topic argument is about the cluttered-ness of the code, which you are not willing to substantiate with anything besides "using ... normal images [will result in] hopelessly cluttered code", you've presented nothing else that wasn't immediately refuted.

 

[LeX]

I've told you, I wasn't talking about the total length of characters.

Serves me right for giving the guy my way of doing it and not your method.

Whatever, dude. You're always right, I'm always wrong. Everything you say is absolutely 100% correct. Happy? End of discussion.

 

[Dusty]

By your unwillingness to answer the simple to the point questions in my last post I'll assume that, though you won't admit it, you've seen your error.

I accept your concession.