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

Groups > comp.lang.php > #17882 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#17897

Arno,

> So the a simplified example for the code fragment *could*
> be like this:
> [snip]

Great !    You now have (at least) /two/ tables, which means that alignment 
wise they can, and most likely will, look quite different from each other. 
I guess you didn't think that far ?

And before you come up with the obvious "fix" for that: I hope you do 
realize that that will disable the tables own with recalculation (based on 
the contents) ?      In short, now your "rules" are dictating what the 
webpage looks like - instead of helping with what the webpage designer wants 
to have.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser



"Arno Welzel" <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote in message 
news:gidmatFqspeU1@mid.individual.net...
> 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 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17899

On 26.04.19 11:09, R.Wieser wrote:

> Arno,
> 
>> So the a simplified example for the code fragment *could*
>> be like this:
>> [snip]
> 
> Great !    You now have (at least) /two/ tables, which means that alignment 
> wise they can, and most likely will, look quite different from each other. 
> I guess you didn't think that far ?

Yes I did.

> And before you come up with the obvious "fix" for that: I hope you do 
> realize that that will disable the tables own with recalculation (based on 
> the contents) ?      In short, now your "rules" are dictating what the 
> webpage looks like - instead of helping with what the webpage designer wants 
> to have.

I am very well aware of it. My example was just to demonstrate, how
*valid* HTML would look like. And of course this may cause layout issues
which have to be fixed as well.

Feel free to show a better solution using valid HTML code, I'm always
willing to learn from good examples. And no - valid HTML is not
"perfection" it's just the baseline from which a website has to start.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17901

On 26.04.19 11:20, Arno Welzel wrote:

> On 26.04.19 11:09, R.Wieser wrote:
> 
>> Arno,
>>
>>> So the a simplified example for the code fragment *could*
>>> be like this:
>>> [snip]
>>
>> Great !    You now have (at least) /two/ tables, which means that alignment 
>> wise they can, and most likely will, look quite different from each other. 
>> I guess you didn't think that far ?
> 
> Yes I did.
> 
>> And before you come up with the obvious "fix" for that: I hope you do 
>> realize that that will disable the tables own with recalculation (based on 
>> the contents) ?      In short, now your "rules" are dictating what the 
>> webpage looks like - instead of helping with what the webpage designer wants 
>> to have.
> 
> I am very well aware of it. My example was just to demonstrate, how
> *valid* HTML would look like. And of course this may cause layout issues
> which have to be fixed as well.
> 
> Feel free to show a better solution using valid HTML code, I'm always
> willing to learn from good examples. And no - valid HTML is not
> "perfection" it's just the baseline from which a website has to start.

And to avoid further meta discussions a bit of my background:

<https://github.com/arnowelzel/>
<https://wordpress.org/plugins/lightbox-photoswipe/>
<https://wordpress.org/plugins/timed-content/>
<https://arnowelzel.de/en/projects/websites>


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17905

Arno,

>> Great !    You now have (at least) /two/ tables, which means that
>> alignment wise they can, and most likely will, look quite different
>> from each other.
>> I guess you didn't think that far ?
>
> Yes I did.

I don't believe you.

> I am very well aware of it. My example was just to demonstrate,
> how *valid* HTML would look like.

While fully ignoring if it would be usable to the OP.   Man, you really are 
a piece of work.   :-(

> Feel free to show a better solution using valid HTML code

Just after you show me a better solution /without/ using "valid HTML" (which 
I take you mean as W3 compliant).  :-D

Kiddo, are you daft or something ?     Did you really just demand I should 
create something by *your* rules ?   Even though we are quibbling about if 
those rules should actually be followed ?   Really ?

> And to avoid further meta discussions a bit of my background:

I could not care less about who (you think) you are.    Your explanation 
about your POV (whatever it might be) is much more valuable to me.    And 
pardon me, but al you have been doing is telling me how that standar /must/ 
be followed while fully disregarding the practical side of it.

> This is not a matter of personal taste or "theoretical approach".
> HTML is a technical standard.

You cannot even get yourself to name the beast by its name, can you ? 
Yes, the W3 papers constitute /a/ standard.    Alas (for you) (each of) the 
browser makers have their own.

Take a wild guess which I think is more important in day-to-day stuff 
(business).


But, I'm going to end our conversation here.   I don't think it will be 
beneficial to you, the OP or me to continue talking about our differences in 
approach.

Goodbye.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17906

On 26.04.19 12:31, R.Wieser wrote:


[...]
> Kiddo, are you daft or something ?     Did you really just demand I should 
> create something by *your* rules ?   Even though we are quibbling about if 
> those rules should actually be followed ?   Really ?
[...]
> But, I'm going to end our conversation here.   I don't think it will be 
> beneficial to you, the OP or me to continue talking about our differences in 
> approach.

Yes, wise choice. JFTR: the OP was fine with my answer. But I think you
have read this already.


-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17907

On 26.04.19 12:31, R.Wieser wrote:

> You cannot even get yourself to name the beast by its name, can you ? 
> Yes, the W3 papers constitute /a/ standard.    Alas (for you) (each of) the 
> browser makers have their own.

JFTR:

<https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/>
<https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/>



-- 
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17895

On 24/04/2019 16.30, Dan Campbell wrote:

Just pointing out that this should have been in a HTML related newsgroup 
or forum instead of here.


> She starts a FORM, then a table inside that form, and does a few things.
> Then, without closing the table, she closes the FORM, creates another form,
> and immediately starts adding rows to the first table, without creating a table.

A form-tag should enclose the whole table of reside within a column 
td-tag, if you want to try to follow the HTML specification, sure 
browsers try to fix faulty HTML, but they do it in different ways, so 
the faulty HTML may result in different looking/working pages.



> Note that the multiple FORMs themselves are inside one containing table, which is properly closed at the end.
>
> <div id="main">
>     <div class="container">
>        <table width="100%">
>          <tr>
>             <td>
>                <form class="xxxx" action="xxxx.php" method="post">
>                   <table id="xxxx" class="xxxx" width="100%">
>                      <tr>
> <!--...-->
> <!--...-->
> <!--...-->
> <!--...-->
>                      </tr>

Close the table here and then close the form

>                <!-- HERE IT IS, A NEW FORM WITHOUT CLOSING THE TABLE -->
>                </form>
>                <form class="xxxx" action="xxxxxx.php" method="post">
Open a new table here

>                <!-- AND CONTINUING THE EXISTING TABLE, FROM PREVOUS FORM -->
>                   <tr>
>                      <td colspan = "2">
>                          <label><b><u>APPLICANT DETAILS</u></b></label>
>                          <br>
>                          <br>
>                      </td>
>                   </tr>

close the second table and then close the form.


-- 

  //Aho

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php

csiph-web