Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #17891

Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs?

Show key headers only | View raw

On 25.04.19 11:06, Arno Welzel wrote:

> On 25.04.19 09:49, R.Wieser wrote:
> 
>> Dan,
>>
>>> The funny thing is, it runs fine.  The Browser doesn't complain
>>> about it, although my IDE complains (appropriately, imo) of
>>> nesting issues.
>>
>> Have you tried (looking at the example you posted) to move the FORM tag from 
>> just above the TABLE tag to just below it (just infront of the TR tag) ?
> 
> Which is not valid either. <form> must not be a child of <table>.
> 
> See:
> 
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/tabular-data.html#the-table-element>
> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/table>
> 
> That's why I recommended using a HTML validator to check the result.
> Just because elements are properly nested it does not mean that it's
> valid HTML.
> 
> It may be neccessary to do more refactoring than just moving tags around.

And for the sake of peace with R. Wieser who believes, it don't know,
what I'm talking about - a more specific example, how it *could* be:

1) Never put a <form> as a child of <table> itself - this is not allowed
and procudes invalid HTML

2) Never interleave tags

So the a simplified example for the code fragment *could* be like this:

<div id="main">
  <div class="container">

    <!-- first form here with a table *inside* -->

    <form class="xxxx" action="xxxx.php" method="post">
      <table width="100%">

        <!-- all the content for this form here -->

      </table>
    </form>

    <!-- second form here with another table *inside* -->

    <form class="xxxx" action="xxxxxx.php" method="post">
      <table width="100%">

        <!-- all the content for this form here -->

      </table>
    </form>

   </div>
</div>

Personally I would redesign the whole thing and not use TABLE at all but
 DIV elements only CSS grids or bootstrap. These could be responsive as
well, if needed.



-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Back to comp.lang.php | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Dan Campbell <dcwhatthe@gmail.com> - 2019-04-24 07:30 -0700
  Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 08:55 +0200
    Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-25 10:12 +0200
      Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 11:01 +0200
        Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-25 12:08 +0200
          Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 13:59 +0200
            Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-25 16:13 +0200
              Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 16:56 +0200
          Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-04-25 08:05 -0400
            Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-26 10:53 +0200
              Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 11:14 +0200
                Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-26 11:59 +0200
                Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 12:08 +0200
            Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-05-29 19:20 +0200
  Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-25 09:49 +0200
    Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 11:06 +0200
      Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-25 14:09 +0200
        Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Dan Campbell <dcwhatthe@gmail.com> - 2019-04-25 05:32 -0700
          Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-26 11:20 +0200
            Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 11:31 +0200
        Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-26 11:09 +0200
          Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 11:20 +0200
            Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 11:24 +0200
            Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-04-26 12:31 +0200
              Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 13:34 +0200
              Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2019-04-26 13:36 +0200
  Re: Is it legitimate to have a continuous TABLE through multiple FORMs? "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> - 2019-04-25 21:36 +0200

csiph-web