@kelly23Feb 20.2008 — #Because to get the result that you want, the code should be:
<i> </i><table> <tr> <td> a </td> <td> c </td> </tr> <tr> <td> b </td> <td> d </td> </tr> </table>
@WebJoelFeb 20.2008 — #"<tr>" cannot exist inside of a "<td>", and "<td>" canot exist anywhere but inside of a "<tr>".. more-or-less the browser is trying it's best to render [I]something..[/I]
@lamdkauthorFeb 20.2008 — #"<tr>" cannot exist inside of a "<td>", and "<td>" canot exist anywhere but inside of a "<tr>".. more-or-less the browser is trying it's best to render [I]something..[/I][/QUOTE]
ohh no wonder i am nub
this sucks cuz
i need to generate more and more columns... not rows arg
im using some code on the backend to try to make columns and stuff oh well
now im going to have like 25 for loops (using XQuery!!)
@WebJoelFeb 22.2008 — #Yes you can't put a table row inside of a [I]table division[/I] ...[/quote] You might want to call "<td>" "table data" cells and not "table divisions", -lest we confuse newcomers. ?
Nesting tables, -can be done but it's a bain and should be avoided. :mad:
@WebJoelFeb 23.2008 — #'nested tables' had a particularly deletarious effect upon WIN-98 2nd Edition with minimal system RAM. I used to have ~, and any page with 3 or 4 'table nestings' almost always resulted in a lovely BSOD. A 'stack overflow' was the official cause. Increasing the RAM [I]helped[/I] but Win-98 had a 'software bug' that created this suseptability.
I much prefer using DIVisions, -they were made for and intended for just such nesting, and as such, work the processor much less.
And, -I have long since switched to XP (and Linux). ?