1 Reply Latest reply on Aug 3, 2006 1:23 PM by Newsgroup_User

    HTML rowspans and colspans...good or bad?

    stickers11
      Okay, so I gathered pretty early on that the layout mode in Dreamweaver was messy...however I never really understood why.
      My HTML theory was learned through Dreamweaver not old school hard coding.
      Then I found a nice little posting on the use of Spans: http://apptools.com/rants/spans.php
      I believe this is the major flaw in the use of the Layout mode, am I correct in this summation?
      The poster suggests using nested Tables to securely lock down the width and height of your tables/cells.
      My question is, which poses the greater problems: having Rows explode or Columns? I always thought HTML likes to "grow" horizontally if it needs to, and that height could be "locked" down fairly easily.
      Secondly, should the merge/split cell feature in standard mode be avoided as well? I gather this introduces the same issues with Rowspan and Colspan.
      So finally, is it ever wise to use Rowspan and Colspan? One can overdue it with nested tables as well I imagine?
        • 1. Re: HTML rowspans and colspans...good or bad?
          Level 7
          > I believe this is the major flaw in the use of the Layout mode, am I
          > correct
          > in this summation?

          Yes.

          > My question is, which poses the greater problems: having Rows explode or
          > Columns? I always thought HTML likes to "grow" horizontally if it needs
          > to, and
          > that height could be "locked" down fairly easily.

          That's incorrect. Table height is invalid HTML - always has been.

          > Secondly, should the merge/split cell feature in standard mode be avoided
          > as
          > well?

          Yes, unless it's used very sparingly to accomplish a specific task.

          > So finally, is it ever wise to use Rowspan and Colspan?

          I could say no, but there are times were merging adjacent cells can be
          useful. However, I generally say this -

          Instead of merging cells horizontally, terminate your table and start a new
          one. Instead of splitting cells horizontally/vertically, nest a new table
          with the desired structure.

          --
          Murray --- ICQ 71997575
          Adobe Community Expert
          (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
          ==================
          http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
          http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
          http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
          http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
          ==================


          "stickers11" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
          news:eatkjp$ak2$1@forums.macromedia.com...
          > Okay, so I gathered pretty early on that the layout mode in Dreamweaver
          > was
          > messy...however I never really understood why.
          > My HTML theory was learned through Dreamweaver not old school hard coding.
          > Then I found a nice little posting on the use of Spans:
          > http://apptools.com/rants/spans.php
          > I believe this is the major flaw in the use of the Layout mode, am I
          > correct
          > in this summation?
          > The poster suggests using nested Tables to securely lock down the width
          > and
          > height of your tables/cells.
          > My question is, which poses the greater problems: having Rows explode or
          > Columns? I always thought HTML likes to "grow" horizontally if it needs
          > to, and
          > that height could be "locked" down fairly easily.
          > Secondly, should the merge/split cell feature in standard mode be avoided
          > as
          > well? I gather this introduces the same issues with Rowspan and Colspan.
          > So finally, is it ever wise to use Rowspan and Colspan? One can overdue it
          > with nested tables as well I imagine?
          >
          >