FUNNY! how i don't get this simple code now

1

Okay, this code used to work, without the

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"<A href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">[/HTML">http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

part.

But now, with it, It just doesn’t work

Here is the code:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<center>
<table width="580" height="100%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
 <tr>
  <td height="100%" valign="middle" align="center">asdf</td>
 </tr>
</table>
</center>
</body>
</html>

Here is the otucome of the page: http://www.motioncache.com/new_layout_test.htm

Supposedly, it’s supposed to stretch all the way down and vertically center the text. With the Doctype thingie, it just doesn’t work. :jail:

Does anyone know a solution to this?

2

Tables are really the way to go if you truly plan your site. But as browsers mature more and DIV layouts are popping up. But I always go with tables. Consider it like a scaffolding for a house. BUt you do have to plan well. But your doc type has everything to do with how your web page is interpreted by the browser. That is if I understand what is being asked. Anything can be done with tables, and frames are not always bad either.

3

That’s not true. If you have a CSS based layout and a table based layout that look exactly the same, the CSS layout is virtually always lighter, more accessible, easier to maintain, and better for people with PDAs.

Take a look at http://alistapart.com - there are many good articles on CSS based layouts and XHTML. MM’s DevCenter has some decent articles as well :slight_smile:

4

I still say tables are the way to go. I do use div layouts also. But I find that a well planned table layout is less problematic. And you can still contrl them with css. But to each his own.

5

i agree but frames IMO are a nono