Table background image no-repeat

**RobDog888** · Jan 20th, 2004, 02:16 PM

I want to put an image in a particular cell in a table. the problem
is if the cell gets resized to large the image gets repeated
accross the cell. I have tried using the styles for the page, but
then the image is not centered in the cell during any resizing.

What is the correct syntax to accomplish this (if possible).

Thanks for any assistance.

**Travis G** · Jan 22nd, 2004, 09:19 AM

I'm going to guess that you have the correct syntax. I'm not going to look to see what it should be. You can double check the documentation yourself (I have links in my sig if it will help).

I am going to warn though, that IE's support of five-year-old CSS standards is questionable at best. Even if you get the correct CSS, it may only work in compliant browsers (try Mozilla).

'Course, if you are having problems in Mozilla, then let us know, we'll look into it deeper. I'm just suspecting that IE is your problem since it is 99% of the problem.

**vbNeo** · Jan 22nd, 2004, 10:23 AM

I don't think Gecko is a good as everyone says... I'de made a lot of different rendering tests and Mosaic is always the winner... The only thing that bothers me is that M$ is setting their own standards instead of sticking to w3c - but otherwise, I can't see why I should use Gecko above Mosaic...

**CornedBee** · Jan 22nd, 2004, 10:47 AM

Mosaic? Do you mean IE's engine?

Given that the table cell has an id, this CSS should work, AFAIK in all browsers > 4.

Code:

#cellid {
  background-image: url(blabla);
  background-repeat: no-repeat;
  background-position: center center;
}

**RobDog888** · Jan 22nd, 2004, 11:50 AM

Thanks guys for the replies.

Corned Bee, I will try it out in a few hours.
I will let you know how it goes.

Thanks.

**vbNeo** · Jan 22nd, 2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by CornedBee
Mosaic? Do you mean IE's engine?

Given that the table cell has an id, this CSS should work, AFAIK in all browsers > 4.

Code:

#cellid { background-image: url(blabla); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center center; }

Yes... Mosaic... MoZilla was originally name
Mosaic Killer, but it somehow got to be MoZilla in common speech

**CornedBee** · Jan 22nd, 2004, 01:17 PM

Mozilla was an extremly early nickname of Netscape, older than IE.

I don't think Gecko is a good as everyone says... I'de made a lot of different rendering tests and Mosaic is always the winner...

What kind of tests? I don't think IE supports a single feature of the CSS and DOM standards that Moz doesn't, and very few if any in the HTML standard. Not to mention that IE doesn't support XHTML at all. It doesn't understand the application/xhtml+xml document type (download box pops up) and renders application/xml as XML tree even if the root element is <html> with a correct namespace. That is, unless you specify a XHTML 1.1 doctype which IE cannot parse.

Just compare my page in Mozilla and IE.
http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e0226430/base.xml

**Travis G** · Jan 22nd, 2004, 01:21 PM

Mozilla is an open source project born of the Gecko project. The Gecko project came from Netscape. Netscape was built by the people who built the world's first graphical HTTP client: Mosaic.

Mozilla's heritage is Mosaic. IE's engine may be Mosaic simply because MS has never innovated a day in its life. It takes what it can from other places just to save itself time. I think by IE 6 though, we've seen atleast one rewrite if not two. IE may still identify itself as a Mosaic-based browser, but I doubt it is.

Don't think of Mozilla as something that wants to kill Mosaic, but as Mosaic on steriods, wanting to destroy or protect Tokyo, depending on which movie you watch.

**CornedBee** · Jan 22nd, 2004, 01:26 PM

Thanks for clearing that up.

**Travis G** · Jan 22nd, 2004, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by CornedBee
Just compare my page in Mozilla and IE.
http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e0226430/base.xml

Some other ones to compare:

http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/
http://garris.pointclark.net/ (sliding menus without any JavaScript)

Don't abuse my site, please, it is an old machine on a cable modem.

**CornedBee** · Jan 22nd, 2004, 01:34 PM

Unlike me and you, Eric actually went through the trouble to get his page working in IE.

A nice page you've got there. I like the menu effect.

But mine is still the largest difference.

**Travis G** · Jan 22nd, 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by CornedBee
Unlike me and you, Eric actually went through the trouble to get his page working in IE.

Yeah, I can't be bothered to be held back by the those who refuse to acknowledge five-year-old standards.

Cookie for Eric, though.

A nice page you've got there. I like the menu effect.

Thank you. It is accessible for aural browsers. I haven't tested enough for users with low vision who may crank the font up to 1000% or so, but if they select the basic style sheet (something Mozilla will let you do from the View menu), then they shouldn't have a problem.

If I was any measure of a graphic artist, I would wrap everything a little better to give it a Art Deco/Streamline Modern look. I'm just tickled at what can be done without scripting.

But mine is still the largest difference.

Yes, yes it is.

Wow.... I haven't made the move, yet, to XHTML, but I see you've jump ahead to the end of the book.

**CornedBee** · Jan 22nd, 2004, 02:07 PM

You know, I'd love to use XHTML 2, XForms, SVG and all those gimmicks. But there's not a single browser supporting all of these natively...

**vbNeo** · Jan 22nd, 2004, 02:21 PM

Wether It's 5 year old standards or not 90% of the worlds internet users use it, so one has to adapt to it, no matter what you think or say, nothing will change that... I myself use MoZilla(I like the interface better

) <-- but that's also the only reason...

**Travis G** · Jan 22nd, 2004, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by vbNeo
Wether It's 5 year old standards or not 90% of the worlds internet users use it, so one has to adapt to it, no matter what you think or say, nothing will change that... I myself use MoZilla(I like the interface better

) <-- but that's also the only reason...

I think that arguement is silly. We have to put up with second rate products because we are too lazy to demand better? I can't get into that. And what kind of person or company can tolerate the wide-spread knowledge, the open truth that they are too lazy and selfish and greedy to support standards that they themselves helped write five years ago?

I actually like Opera's interface better, but use Mozilla since it supports the CSS Events that Opera doesn't.

Opera does support the @media convention. Last I check, Mozilla didn't support that.

**vbNeo** · Jan 22nd, 2004, 03:08 PM

I'd like to see any of you change the fact that 90% of the internet users use IE - it can't be done, people won't understand why - and think IE is better because it's built into their favorite bunch of errors(windows)...

**CornedBee** · Jan 23rd, 2004, 06:25 AM

Don't know about @media, but Moz certainly allows both the media attribute on <link> and the media types on @import.

I think that arguement is silly. We have to put up with second rate products because we are too lazy to demand better? I can't get into that. And what kind of person or company can tolerate the wide-spread knowledge, the open truth that they are too lazy and selfish and greedy to support standards that they themselves helped write five years ago?

Wide-spread knowledge? Among the likes of you and me, yes. But we are learned computer users, even programmers. The 90% IE-users out there mostly know how to turn the computer on, start MSoffice and use it. And maybe a few other programs too. Most of them never heard of Mozilla and would be afraid to use it if they knew it existed.

Of course, there's no reason for that. I installed it on my mother's PC and she hasn't got any problems.

But it's the way it is.

**Travis G** · Jan 23rd, 2004, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by CornedBee
Wide-spread knowledge?

Well, true.

I think there is something at Opera's website that demonstrates the @media thing. You can specify a different CSS for print, screen, projection, and I think aural.

The thing that is neat is projection: this is basicly, how should the page look if it were to be projected onto a big screen (full-screen mode)? You can set up page breaks and the websites starts to look like a MS Powerpoint presentation.

**vbNeo** · Jan 23rd, 2004, 04:44 PM

the websites starts to look like a MS Powerpoint presentation.

Ohh God no - please don't let that happen

**Travis G** · Jan 26th, 2004, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by vbNeo
Ohh God no - please don't let that happen

Yeah, there was a day when websites actually contained useful content. Funny that, we wouldn't want content, we just want flashy graphics and lots of links to things that are cool and equally hollow.

Some content can actually be appropriately displayed in a presentation format.

Me personally would just use it for making easy family slide shows. Opera is free and it is using an open standard, so no need to pirate PowerPoint.

**CornedBee** · Jan 26th, 2004, 09:23 AM

OpenOffice is free too, and it's made for presentations, unlike HTML.

But I agree, it can be a very nice feature. I'm not sure about Mozilla's support for "projection" (in particular I don't know if it ever uses it), but I know that the CSS Validator has a bug with it.

Thread: Table background image no-repeat

Thread Tools

Display

Table background image no-repeat

well

Re: well

lol

Posting Permissions