This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Stylesheets > February 2004 > Tables: periodic, elemental, operatic, HTML4, CSS2 (with tabular data, not "layout&
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Tables: periodic, elemental, operatic, HTML4, CSS2 (with tabular data, not "layout&
|
|
| Karl Smith 2004-02-20, 12:29 pm |
| I heard a rumour that Opera succeeded where none have before, and
implemented the tables described in HTML4 and CSS2. So I thought I'd
try it out with the well known Periodic Table.
http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/cs...s_periodic.html
[Do not view in MSIE, you've been warned.]
CSS:
Notice in the TRs with the lanthanides and actinides, the empty TDs at
the end taking the background colour of the TR? I say they shouldn't
do this. I say: table {empty-cells: hide;} - means that empty area
should be transparent and show the background texture. Mozilla agrees
with me. Opera (7.23) is showing the orange and lavenderblush
background colours even on empty cells. Can someone tell me if this is
fixed in Opera 7.5?
The bright pink cell has a pure CSS popup that only Opera implements
as I expect. Mozilla fails to inherit the background colour. Which is
correct?
Chemistry:
The fellow over at web elements:
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/index.html
- calls them "lanthanoids" and "actinoids", everyone else has
"lanthanides" and "actinides", I always thought they were "rare
earths" and "transuranics"?
Which order should the data in each element's cell come in? Should the
atomic number be above or below the symbol?
Many more questions where these came from...
--
(Anyone who tries validating my CSS, talk to Christoph Paeper.)
Karl Smith.
| |
| Harlan Messinger 2004-02-20, 2:29 pm |
|
"Karl Smith" <google-2003-03@kjsmith.com> wrote in message
news:3d18d2.0402200748.7e995201@posting.google.com...
> I heard a rumour that Opera succeeded where none have before, and
> implemented the tables described in HTML4 and CSS2. So I thought I'd
> try it out with the well known Periodic Table.
>
> http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/cs...s_periodic.html
> [Do not view in MSIE, you've been warned.]
>
When I move the cursor from left to right, the symbols for the elements
disappear and generally don't reappear. When I move from top to bottom, the
symbols reappear as I leave on the downward pass, but on the upward pass
only the top half of the symbol reappears. What does it all mean??? :-)
| |
| Harlan Messinger 2004-02-20, 2:29 pm |
|
"Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c15h2j$1eaf15$1@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Karl Smith" <google-2003-03@kjsmith.com> wrote in message
> news:3d18d2.0402200748.7e995201@posting.google.com...
>
> When I move the cursor from left to right, the symbols for the elements
> disappear and generally don't reappear. When I move from top to bottom,
the
> symbols reappear as I leave on the downward pass, but on the upward pass
> only the top half of the symbol reappears. What does it all mean??? :-)
>
That is, it's in Opera 7.21 that this happens.
| |
|
|
| Karl Smith 2004-02-21, 12:29 am |
| Matthias Gutfeldt <say-no-to-spam@gmx.net> wrote:
> Karl Smith wrote:
>
> The spec <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/tables.ht...def-empty-cells>
> doesn't even mention what should happen to the background, it only deals
> with the cell border. So I guess browsers can do as they see fit.
In CSS2.1, which while I was away went from "working draft" to
"candidate recommendation" status, it does specifically mention
backgrounds too. (Can't believe I fell into that trap.) It seems a
simple matter of common sense, what is the use of making the borders
disappear and leaving blotches of colour?
But my question remains, what does the latest beta from Opera do? (I
notice the rendering in Opera 7.23 is exactly the same as MSIE6.)
--
Karl Smith.
| |
| Karl Smith 2004-02-21, 1:28 am |
| Mason A. Clark <masoncNOT@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2004 07:48:12 -0800, Karl Smith wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, crashes, KABOOM. I know some people I'll send it to.
Newer, harmless, version at that URL now. Was just following up on
earlier post where I said I'd write something that would only work in
Opera. ;-)
| |
| Lauri Raittila 2004-02-21, 7:28 am |
| In article Karl Smith wrote:
> Matthias Gutfeldt <say-no-to-spam@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
> In CSS2.1, which while I was away went from "working draft" to
> "candidate recommendation" status, it does specifically mention
> backgrounds too. (Can't believe I fell into that trap.) It seems a
> simple matter of common sense, what is the use of making the borders
> disappear and leaving blotches of colour?
>
> But my question remains, what does the latest beta from Opera do? (I
> notice the rendering in Opera 7.23 is exactly the same as MSIE6.)
It still renders background.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.
| |
| Stan Brown 2004-02-21, 4:29 pm |
| It seems "Karl Smith" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
>I heard a rumour that Opera succeeded where none have before, and
>implemented the tables described in HTML4 and CSS2. So I thought I'd
>try it out with the well known Periodic Table.
>
>http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/cs...s_periodic.html
>[Do not view in MSIE, you've been warned.]
:-) It looks good in Moz 1.4.
With one exception: the three-digit atomic numbers are slightly too
wide for the cells.
But _something_ goes wrong after display, and Mozilla locks up. I'm
in Win98; I switched to the Gravity program to reread your message,
then tried to switch back to Moz and it would not display. I had to
use Task Mangler to kill it.
>The fellow over at web elements:
>http://www.webelements.com/webelements/index.html
>- calls them "lanthanoids" and "actinoids", everyone else has
>"lanthanides" and "actinides", I always thought they were "rare
>earths" and "transuranics"?
Perhaps this is a matter of different national educational systems,
or different times of attending school?
I studied chemistry up through 1971. To us the first series was
formally "lanthanides" or sometimes informally "rare earths"; the
second was "actinides".
"Transuranics" isn't logical, since the actinides include Uranium
itself and three elements with lower Z.
I've never seen the -oids forms you mention.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
| |
| Andreas Prilop 2004-02-21, 4:29 pm |
| Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I studied chemistry up through 1971. To us the first series was
> formally "lanthanides" or sometimes informally "rare earths"; the
> second was "actinides".
>
> I've never seen the -oids forms you mention.
.... recommended by IUPAC. "Lanthanide" would the designation of
an anion like chloride, hydride, sulfide, etc.
| |
| Stan Brown 2004-02-21, 10:29 pm |
| It seems "Andreas Prilop" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
>Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>... recommended by IUPAC. "Lanthanide" would the designation of
>an anion like chloride, hydride, sulfide, etc.
Ah, those pesky standardizers. :-)
When I took chemistry a liter wasn't exactly 1000 cc either.
What's the IPUAC recommendation for the series starting at Z=89? Not
"transuranoids", I assume?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
| |
| Karl Smith 2004-02-22, 2:28 am |
| Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> It seems "Karl Smith" wrote in
> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
>
> :-) It looks good in Moz 1.4.
>
> With one exception: the three-digit atomic numbers are slightly too
> wide for the cells.
I only specified sans-serif for the font and 2em for the width of a
TD, with Arial a three digit number is less than 2 ems wide. Are you
using some wacky font for sans-serif?
> But _something_ goes wrong after display, and Mozilla locks up. I'm
> in Win98; I switched to the Gravity program to reread your message,
> then tried to switch back to Moz and it would not display. I had to
> use Task Mangler to kill it.
There's nothing malicious in it, it's a normal table. (I did know that
would happen with IE6.) Which version did you see, the original one
with the popup applying to every cell that was dancing all over the
place, or the "harmless" (to IE) one? Both were harmless in Moz 1.6.
> "Transuranics" isn't logical, since the actinides include Uranium
> itself and three elements with lower Z.
>
> I've never seen the -oids forms you mention.
I take trans to mean "around", not "above", as in: subsonic,
trans-sonic, supersonic. Well I've decided to go with "-oids", got to
keep up with the Joneses.
Newer version:
http://users.tpg.com.au/karl6740/cs...c_table_v2.html
--
Karl Smith.
| |
|
|
| Karl Smith 2004-02-22, 3:28 am |
| "Harlan Messinger" wrote:
> "Karl Smith" <google-2003-03@kjsmith.com> wrote:
>
> When I move the cursor from left to right, the symbols for the elements
> disappear and generally don't reappear. When I move from top to bottom, the
> symbols reappear as I leave on the downward pass, but on the upward pass
> only the top half of the symbol reappears.
It was very rough. The CSS popup is a trivial matter that I'll fix
after I get the table right. The effect you saw was a consequence of
flipping the "display", "z-index" and "position" properties
simultaneously. Don't do that :-)
> What does it all mean??? :-)
An excellent question.
| |
|
|
|
|
| Karl Smith 2004-02-22, 9:29 am |
| "Andrew Thompson" <SeeMySites@www.invalid> wrote:
> Karl Smith wrote:
> ...
>
> <which links to *elements*>
Well it shouldn't! The links are the last vestige of the table I
swiped to avoid having to type all the symbols in myself. But since it
has the symbols above the numbers, and everyone else has the other way
around, I'm going to be retyping all that anyway, it seems.
> Any chance of getting the elements
> tarted up and styled?
> http://www.cs.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/nph-pertab/tab/element/C
Not mine to fix, sorry.
> just my 2c
> [ which 'rounded', comes to ..0! ;-) ]
Odd how the rounding always seems to work in Coles' favour, ain't it?
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|