Hmm... I need to find out myself. I don't know what is the answer to your question. I'll do some investigation and get back to you if I discover an decent answer. You should email the people at iContact as they probably could help you..

Oh the attachment must not have worked, heres a link:.

Http://www.geocities.com/iansupload/csssource.txt.

Thank you..

This is a rough example, but basically what you're looking for. If you want the same functionality as your current iContact site (the content scrolls, while the rest of the page is fixed), then that will take a little more work. Or, if you don't want the content scrolling, but you want the black strip on the left to go all the way down the page, that, too, will take a little more work (but just a very little)..

By the way, tables are.

Not.

A helpful way to create a good layout. Tables are meant to display tabular data, not lay out your web page...

Well, to start with before even looking at your CSS I found these errors.

Should actually be.

And you shouldn't have your images inside heading tags also, they are for text..

P.

{.

Position: absolute;.

Top: 100px;.

Left: 150px.

P.margin {margin-left: 150px}.

P.margin {margin-top: 100px}.

}.

You have opened up new tags inside of an already open one..

P {.

Position: absolute;.

Top: 100px;.

Left: 150px;.

}.

This would make all your P tags this way..

P.margin {margin-left: 150px}.

P.margin {margin-top: 100px}.

Your giving 2 different attributes to the same tag, you should actually have.

P.margin {.

Margin-left: 150px;.

Margin-top: 100px;.

}.

Hopefully this should get you on your way.

*blog* ahem! joe2torials.

*blog*..

They were originally meant for that purpose but what is the problem for using them to create a perfect layout?.

Most sites you look at use tables for their lay out, they are a perfectly good way to create a layout..

Also, ianlange11 looks to be a beginner, it may not be wise to introduce all the complex tags and doctype/cdata ect that you just used in your code. remember, we all have to build up to these things, one step at a time..

Because they are not.

Meant.

For that, that's why. I see no reason to use tables over semantic markup styled with CSS..

If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you? Using tables to lay out your page is wrong. There's no way around it..

I don't really consider a full Doctype to be "complex", more like required. And, if he/she is a beginner, then there is no time like the present to learn, and he/she might as well learn the correct way...

If it works then what is the real problem with it?.

Yes, in a shot! why is it wrong? give me 1 good reason why it is..

You do not consider it to be complex because you have been doing this for longer, would you like to have everything thrown at you at once when you start something or would you rather do it one step at a time? he/she will learn the correct way, but it will not be easy if you try to learn everything at once is it? you have to take your time with these things and build yourself up..

When I started out I knew nothing about doctypes / xhtml / cdata / css ect, and if when I started deisgning my iContact website I had everything thrown at me at once I would not have kept at it. because I learned step by step it was easy...

You can drive in a screw with a hammer, but that still doesn't make it the right way..

The.

TABLE.

Element was intended to display tabular data, not lay out web pages..

I never said anyone shouldn't learn step-by-step, I think that's the only way to do it. But there is nothing complex about having a full Doctype; every page should have one..

CSS can seem complex when you don't know it, or are first starting out, but who said it would be easy? If it were easy, wouldn't everyone be doing it? If you keep to it, it isn't really that difficult...

Tables are a good way to start out and get warmed up to HTML, but later it's good to start learning CSS positioning it is very efficient compared to tables, and much much less of a hassle than a bunch of nested tables. just my 2 cents..

There is no.

Wrong.

Way to create a website, it doesn't matter wether you use a table, CSS or any other way. there are only peoples personal preferences, you cannot tell people that something is the.

Right.

Way just because you believe it to be. you must let the person create what he wants and however he wants it..

A book can be used for reading, writing in, used under a uneven table and also to kill flys. have you ever heard of multi-purpose? something that has more than one use..

Everypage SHOULD have one I agree, but why bother posting the code if your not even going to explain what it does and why you have put it there? as with the other code..

Also, it is plain to see that he/she is using HTML, so why bother creating XHTML code? just keep it simple, help with the problem at hand, don't give him/her more things to think about. the time for that is when the problem is fixed and he/she feels it is time to move a step further and learn more..

Anyway, this is getting off topic, discussion over!..

Actually, there.

Is.

A wrong way. Tables are.

Not meant to lay out a web page.

YOU CANNOT GET AROUND THAT..

I don't really think that's applicable here. Using tables for layout and using a book to smash flies is a little different..

If he/she wants me to explain the code, I shall do so to the best of my ability..

I see no XHTML in there, just nice, semantic code; all of that is valid HTML 4.01. Besides, the OP did not specify whether the solution should be written in HTML or XHTML, so I wrote it how I chose...

There are many wrong ways to do a website, tables is one way. Besides, using CSS is much more advantageous than using tables. Compare this very basic table layout:.

To this div layout:.

Which uses this CSS:.

As you can see, the markup for the div layout is much cleaner. It is also much more friendlier for search engines and screen readers. And, tables take much longer to render than divs do. The markup is much smaller so the page is smaller to download -> faster download times, less bandwidth used. This is also thanks to the CSS which is stored in an external .css file. It is cached by the browser so it is loaded only once..

There are probably other advantages that I missed too...

Well, you had to be corrected. But yes, let's get back to topic now...

Corrected? Corrected for what? Making a point that you don't agree with..

I have seen you many times around this forum annoying people in the same way, you come on here and tell people that the right way to do things is always the way you believe it to be. Well guess what, your wrong!.

I know that there are many peolpe on this forums that create their layouts using tables, are you going to tell me that all of them are wrong? That they can't build sites correctly? Because I have seen most of the sites and they are great the way they are, wether they are created using CSS or tables, neither way is right and neither way is wrong.... there is only.

Personal preference.

! Both ways work so why must one of them be wrong because you think it is?.

To be honest, this conversation has gone way off track and I apologise to ianlange11 and I'm sorry that he had to see something like this happen in his thread. Now, this conversation is over, I don't care what you have to say because you make no sense at all, and I prefer talking to people WITH a sensible point of view and who have the ability to discuss things in a civilised manner, which frankly you do not..

DISCUSSION TERMINATED!..

OK I am going to use "div layout" though I am not saying tables are wrong or anything, it is just personal preference beside their original purpose and also I think all three of you presented the div layout as a reccomendation..

Http://www.geocities.com/iansupload/csssourcedif.html.

That is what I have right now, which has a problem with the background I am using this:.

Http://www.geocities.com/iansupload/csssourcedif.txt.

I want my background to be the whole thing instead of only where the text is covering it, and I do not want it like I have the frames, which is how the head and nav bar is always their, I want the whole page to scroll, but I think all of you guys knew or picked up on that..

That I do have some questions about such as "-10.5em" or "0 0 0 3em" I do not understand the "em" or the mulitple zeros. This I do not understand either: /*<![CDATA[*/.

Could someone please? and finally, why is the doc type so neccesary? Thank you all, you have all been a help...

Agent, nobody needed to be corrected, you just chose to step in because you had to say that he was wrong, when there was no wrong and right. And like joe said, this is a common occurance. It's a personal preference on what you use to design your site..

EM is a unit of measuerment like px or pt. 0 0 0 3em represents top, right, bottom, left respectively..

My personal opinion is beginners should do what's easiest, and gradually move into more advanced ways...

He said that it doesn't matter what you use to design your iContact site - not true, while it is completely one's own preference what to use, and I haven't said that it isn't, it still makes a lot of difference. I presented the major differences. Besides, I believe Joe gets irritated of me easily due to personal issues. I have presented those facts many times, in fact, I copied and pasted from another of post of mine. I have never gotten a reaction like that...

Right, it's ones own preference, meaning there was no right or wrong answer, meaning nobody should be corrected...

Contradiction.

!! now your going back on what you just corrected me for?.

Nothing personal about it, but while you can't make your mind up about things it is simple to see why you annoy people so much. Outright contradiction in your post, first you felt you had to.

'correct'.

Me on something which isn't wrong in the first place (you just believe it to be) and then to turn around and say that it's ones own preference on how they design theyre iContact site which is the reason you were supposedly correcting me for in the first place..

Now I believe even YOU will be able to see that it is.

You.

Who are wrong and should set an example as a member of this forum and especially a moderator to behave in a civilased and peaceful way. In future I suggest you are more courtious to people and try to listen to other people instead of spouting such utter nonsense like you have done through this entire thread ..... in laymens terms, learn to make sense!..

I mean that a table layout is just as wrong as using the <font> tag. Changing to CSS has the same kinds of advantages in both cases..

You do what you want, I can't control it, nobody can. There is one exception though; in some countries, companies are required to have accessible websites. This doesn't usually require getting rid of the table layout but it is usually a good thing to do..

Wrong: You didn't originally say that it's ones own preference what to use (which is true), you said:.

Which in turn is not true, and what I corrected. It does matter; CSS layouts have many more advantages than table layouts..

Nope, I'm still not wrong. I corrected something that was wrong. You responded by simply quoting yourself with:.

Is that a civilized way??.

No, lol, YOU should learn to read posts better. Also, because we have a big personal issue, (you know what I'm talking about), you shouldn't make such big arguments like this out of minimal issues, just because you have the chance. I know that you are an idiot, I've known that for a long time but it is not an excuse.

Sure, I've been in a bag light for most members, for a long time. That is mostly due to correct, although ****y and arrogant comments I have made. I realize that most members hate me, or at least dislike me, hence I will do something to satisfy you for once: Leave. Goodbye HTMLForums, it was fun as long as.. err... heck, I've hated this ever since I signed up.

Of course, I have met lots of nice people, and had many good moments; thanks to everyone for that. But, I have caused more harm than avail; it is time to bid you farewell...

Tables were made to hold tabular data, not to create a layout..

When something is not made for a certin purpose one would say it is not an intended use..

A Defitnition of the word WRONG.

Not required,.

Intended.

, or wanted:.

Took a wrong turn...

Whatever you say boyo, just not listening to a thing your saying anymore.

You may want to read the entire thread again and actually see who was contradicting themselves by saying one thing one minute and another the next..

Bizarro, I agree, as I have said before tables were originally made for that, but if they are also good at creating great layouts why is that so wrong? if they are wrong then why haven't W3.org said that tables are wrong when used to create layouts?.

Can't anyone just accept that tables are great for creating layouts? wether beginner or an expert we all have our ways, and those who choose to use tables are not doing anything the.

Wrong.

Way as people have put it!..

As Josh said, “em” is a relative unit of measurement equal to the font size of the element on which it is used..

The “-10.5em” part is asigning an element a negative margin (-10.5em)..

The “0 0 0 3em” is shorthand; I could have written the following:.

But using shorthand is easier. The format is.

Property.

:.

Top right bottom left.

, with.

Property.

Being a CSS property such as margin or padding, and.

Top, right, bottom,.

And.

Left.

Being the respective values..

See.

This link.

..

Without a complete Doctype a browser goes into a rendering mode called “Quirks Mode” (as opposed to “Standards Compliance Mode”), which can cause unexpected, non-standard behavior when rendering the page..

If someone can explain any of this in a more clear and concise manner, by all means…..

Tables are not a good way of creating great layouts they are a way to use an excessive amount of usually confusing code to make a great layout, that just happens to work out, I agree with the fact that table layouts do work but they really shouldnt be used to make layouts. You have been talking this entire time about how as long as it is someone's preferecnce it cant be wrong... just think about that for a while and you will realize that that is false..

Question to paul jr.

Why use em and not px I dont really understand..

If you use EM then the size will change if the user changes the text size..

EM is the height of the letter 'M'..

Whats so confusing about them? keep them simple and they are fine to use just like they are on my site..

I didn't say that it.

Couldn't.

Be wrong, I said.

Why.

Was it wrong when it worked, theres a difference...

Im not going to use your iContact site as an example, because I dont have a version using CSS positioning, and I dont want to say anything that may offend you by mistake....with that said.

View the source of my site,.

Http://www.bizarroproductions.com.

And then the source of my iContact site when it was done in tables.

Http://www.bizarroproductions.com/this.txt.

Now if you want to tell me that the one with tables is less confusing code to go through I will just plain give up becuase either there is no reasoning with you at all, or you are just really stupid. Also which code do you think loads in less time....my guess would be the smaller file, the css positioning one..

Also did you completely disreguard my post describing why tables are.

Wrong.

People can go ahead using tables...I rather see them all learn css positioning as I did, but most wont, they will probably use tables until hell freezes over...just letting them know it's the wrong way..

Obviously you are as stubborn as agent, why is it so hard to see that by using tables to make a layout you can create an equally good layout as you would with CSS..

Tables don't get confusing aslong as you keep the amount of cells to a minumum, some people can go overboard by using hundreds of cells which then is very confusing but aslong as you keep it to a minumum there is no way you can get it wrong..

One would say it is not an intended use but if it's not broke don't fix it. it works so why change it?.

There is no point in discussing this with you any further, you believe it to be wrong whereas I dont, people have they're preferences like I have mentioned before and thats all there is to it...

Way to make stuff up chief.

I didnt say "tables make worse layouts than CSS positioning".

What I think I have said, and shown is that yes tables can make a layout visually the same as CSS postitioning, but using tables are not the correct way to code a layout. You keep on bringing up the utterly stupid and braindead defense of "well it works, DERRRR", well you can get a job to make money or steal it from a bank...stealing it from a bank works, so why do it the right way while the wrong way works?....why? becuase it's wrong..

I used to be on the side of tables, back when I was a newbie to web design, I would argue that tables where the best, and they worked just the same. Then I tired CSS positioning, and was enlightened overnight on how much better it was and how it was the correct way of doing things...mabye you just need to step up or something. But now I am seriously done with this, becuase I think you are the stubborn one here, I have shown all the facts and truths of why tables are the worng way to do things, then you just spew ****, and call people names, you are horrible at debating your thoughts...dont even reply to this, becuase I will not read it, it would be a wate of my time and probably a few brain cells. Now you can just go on knowing how wrong you were, becuase nothing else you say will have any validity..

Good day sir.

I respect the fact that you know a lot about websites and how they work, but you are just on the wrong side here...

Thanks Paul Jr and Josh for answering to my last post. I understand the em, and doctype, but I'm still iffy on the cdata. Also, how do I fix my background, you can see what i'm doing with these, one a txt and another html:.

Http://www.geocities.com/iansupload/csssourcedif.txt.

Http://www.geocities.com/iansupload/csssourcedif.html.

Do you think I should be using any other alternative methods or other recommendations? Thanks again...

It really only applies if you are coding XHTML, not HTML. Since you are only using HTML, it isn't really important, so it's okay to leave it out..

I see what you mean. You don't need to absolutely position your header; it will stick to the top of the page anyways..

As for the navigation, apply a width to it that is equal to the width of the image you want to place as the background. Then, apply the background to the BODY styles. This will cause the background to always be present, all the way down the page..

Try using this CSS:.

Also, if you are not going to place any text within the <h1></h1> tags in the header <div>, then remove them from the source code, okay? If you don't, you'll see a gap above the header image, using the CSS I provided...

Thank you Paul Jr, but I still have some questions if you don't mind..

I got the gap anyway, I still had the /div there so I deleted that too. That put the head background down 100px in Opera for some reason, so I got it too work like this:.

I am pretty sure it should work fine, do you think there is anything wrong with what I did? Also, on my iContact site the nav background blends in with the head, but not on that css, so is there a code to make the background start 100 px down?.

Http://www.geocities.com/iansupload/csssourcedif.txt.

Http://www.geocities.com/iansupload/csssourcedif.html.

There are the links if you wanna look at them. Thank you so much Paul Jr..

Yup! Add the following to the BODY styles..

That sets the background image all the way to the left (0), and 100 pixels from the top (100). The backgrounds should blend smoothly now..

No problem. Glad I could help...

Thanks again Paul Jr, I hope you are not getting tired of all my questions because I have another. How do I make the nav bar and content have two different types of links?.

Http://www.geocities.com/iansupload/csssourcedif.txt.

Http://www.geocities.com/iansupload/csssourcedif.html.

Links updated...

Thank you Joe2Kiss and Paul Jr for your help..

Here are my links with what I have.

Http://www.geocities.com/iansupload/csssourceoff.html.

Http://www.geocities.com/iansupload/csssourceoff.txt.

Http://www.geocities.com/iansupload/woodsstyle.css.

Thanks again...

I'd like to offer my 2 cents worth..

It's wrong because it isn't correct coding practise just like all those people who use <p> with out a </p> or who write there code such as <table border=0 width=100> etc I.

Love.

XHTML cause it has to be correct all <p> tags MUST have a </p> all <table border="0" width="100"> values must be quoted it's 'The Way it's Meant to be'.

If the page layout is simple as it would be if you were just starting out then the <div></div> layout would be simple too wouldn't you agree..

Final point, I learnt HTML by reading other peoples code the good and the bad therefore I take pride in writing my code and making sure it is correct. That way I know others looking at my source will be learning the correct way to write theirs...

<div id="content">.

<h2><font size="5"><b><center>Welcome to WOODS</b></font><br><br><img src="matttree1m.jpg"</img></center></h2>.

Ianlange11 I'm just wondering why if your using css have you coded the above into your iContact site ??.

Using css it should be.

H2 {.

Font-size : large;.

Font-weight : bold;.

Text-align : center;.

}.

Also the <hx> tags are meant to run in order 1 thru 6 so you may want to change that from h2 to h1.

Edit:.

After taking a closer look at your code the best thing I can suggest is for you to validate your code @.

Http://validator.w3.org/.

Your missing the <title> tag which is needed and your list is incorrect as it's not contained in either <ul> or <ol> tags. Also your.

<img src="matttree1m.jpg"></img>.

Needs to be rewritten as <img src="matttree1m.jpg" alt="descriptive text here"> img tags don't need </img> they close automatically...

Thank you Becker_11, I will go over that, I have that stuff in their because I just pasted the old content in and edited to fit, but just left that there..

Now I am wondering how do I put a footer on the pages? The basic format of the page is in the links above in my previous page...

Have a look at my site. I've included a footer in there. The uri is.

Http://www.arach.net.au/~nathaniel.

HTH..

Now that wont position automatically at the bottom will it, because thats kind of what I would need because the pages range in many different lengths...

My 2 cents...I'm going to agree with joe2kiss on the issue of tables..

If you are new to HTML and just a beginner, tables are simple & easy. If you are making a huge, complex site...then of course tables aren't the optimal way to go...they get too confussing, complex & disorienting, just as Bizarro has shown. But is it "wrong"?.

I'm not going to argue the "word" definition, heck if the world was governed by Webster we'd all be lost and you could call every man-made revolution "wrong"..

But let's say you've just visited a new website...you're never able/allowed to look at the source code (theoretically speaking) and everything works, runs & operates flawlessly. Load times & optimization aside...it works...perfectly. Does it matter if the author used a 100000 line, multi-plex chaos of tables? or a streamlined CSS Mona Lisa? I say no...because the author had a vision...which was successfully achieved. Who are you to say he is incapable, incompitant, & "wrong"? Does it all boil down to "a means to and end, or an ends to a means"? That debate has raged on for centuries..

If you are arguing symantics..."tables were designed & should be used ONLY for tabular data" then I think that's extremely naive. They can & do work for other purposes. Everything has an initial, intended purpose...but things change, new ways of using things are discovered, ideas evolve...etc, etc..

Everything in life comes down to personal beliefs and preferences. Nothing more. Who's to say that quoted definition of "wrong" is correct? Heck, what is correct anyways? You get my point..

I'll stop, rambling doesn't help, and (hopefully) no-one will read this anyway...