| who me? 2004-09-29, 11:15 pm |
| Looks fine to me....or are you trying to mean 600 in HEIGHT?? If that's the
case, you need to be aware, height settings in HTML are meaningless. In
fact, the browser disregards height commands. Which frustrates people
because they see the option and use it and then wonder why it doesn't work
or why things remain out of alignment.
If you want a table to be 600 pixels in height even if its contents don't
add up to 600, you create a 1x1 transparent GIF. Insert it into the table.
Set the GIF to 1 wide by 600 high. Now you have a table 600 in height.
"jahPvusd" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:cjfbq7$f7i$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>I have been having trouble with my page layout in IE. No trouble in
>safari. I
> want the main table to be limited to 600 pixels. My main table has that
> fixed
> size. I have created a template of the page with the realtor's picture,
> nav
> bar, etc., with an editable region in the middle of the page. When I add
> a
> table into this middle region and limit it to 600 pixels...it still
> stretches
> even though there is not an image that forces the enlargement. I have
> tried
> nesting a table smaller than 600 pixels and I have tried nesting a 100%
> table
> into this editable region that should be limited to 600 pixels based on
> the
> main table defining the page. It still expands and changes the look for
> the
> page dramatically in IE.
>
> I have posted an example of what I am talking about. Not all links are
> active. The pages to view my problem are the index page, which is okay
> now
> (not sure why). But, if you click the featured listings link you will see
> the
> stretch I am talking about. This is only happening in IE.
>
> Link to index page: http://homepage.mac.com/julieharvill/index.html
>
> Link to problem page of featured listings:
> http://homepage.mac.com/julieharvill/featurelist.html
>
> Again, no problem in safari only IE. I desperately want to understand the
> problem. I never had the problem with Dreamweaver 4 but now use MX 2004.
>
> Please help! Thanks.
>
|