Quick CSS question

[Stationery-Direct]

I have a table and I need to add something to the CSS that makes the bottom line visible, for example (please excuse the crude illustration).

Instead of like this...

--------------------------------------
|oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo|
--------------------------------------

I just want it like this, with just the bottom line visible...


--------------------------------------

Is this possible? The code I have so far is...

.tt460 {
width:460px;
}

Many thanks for any help.

[fisicx]

table {
border: none;
border-bottom: 1px solid red;
}

or

table {
border: none;
}

and add an <hr> to the page.

[Stationery-Direct]

Perfect, easy when you know how, greatly appreciated.

[cmcp]

.tt460 {
border-color:#ff0000;
border-style:solid;
border-width:0 0 1px 0;
width:460px;
}

[cmcp]

table {
border: none;
border-bottom: 1px solid red;
}

I'd go with this method. Don't add a horizontal rule.

[DotNetWebs]

I am just waiting for the "Table are the spawn of the Devil" type comments to appear. ;)

Regards

Dotty

[Stationery-Direct]

I am just waiting for the "Table are the spawn of the Devil" type comments to appear. ;)

Regards

Dotty

lol, yeah I know, it was only for this page though: Free Print Templates (http://www.stationery-direct.co.uk/free-print-templates.php)

[fisicx]

I am just waiting for the "Table are the spawn of the Devil" type comments to appear. ;)
Once did a review of a site with nearly 100 nested tables on the homepage. I seem to remember something like 3000 lines of code.

Nothing wrong with tables, I wish everybody used them except me. And of course you Dotty.

[DotNetWebs]

lol, yeah I know...

I wasn't criticising or suggesting you shouldn't use them (especially as I didn't know what you wanted to use them for!). I was just joking because these threads often get a bit heated.

Have a look at the last couple pages on this thread for instance: :eek:

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=143934

Regards

Dotty

[Kev Jaques]

I am just waiting for the "Table are the spawn of the Devil" type comments to appear. ;)

Regards

Dotty
I cba to argue with other developers over using tables anymore ;) I don't employ anyone that does use them and those that do are not my problem, simplez ;)
Although for antiquated MS and email newsletters in HTML then tables are the only route to go in order to get it to look right in Words renderer and have a full as possible audience. WTG M$ ;)

Damon, look at using lists instead, much quicker to render, any probs gimme a shout.

[DotNetWebs]

I cba to argue with other developers over ...

As above it was a joke!

Regards

Dotty

[Kev Jaques]

I know ;) It's ok I've taken me happy pills this morning ;) hence my usual overuse of -> ;)

[DotNetWebs]

I though you just had a twitch!

Regards

Dotty

[Kev Jaques]

I though you just had a twitch!

Regards

Dotty
I do ;) But I normally get the missus to scratch it :) lol

[cmcp]

So much nonsense talked in that thread, I decided not to get involved since FireFleur was on a crusade to prove it was possible, completely disregarding the fact that they're a pain in the arse for screen readers and don't group content semantically.

Screen readers group content sections by header. If your content is laid out in a table, the user has to tab through everything to get to it.

It was also claimed that tables would be the easiest method to achieve what the OP was after, which again is misleading because to build an accessible table you have to understand the summary, caption, scope, id and headers tags.

Yes it's physically possible, but it depends on your stance of whom you build for. I'm of the belief that my sites should be accessible with anyone using a browser, not just visual users.

It got ridiculous when folk started spouting rubbish like what does layout really mean and semantics is a blind em with science word etc.

[cmcp]

lol, yeah I know, it was only for this page though: Free Print Templates (http://www.stationery-direct.co.uk/free-print-templates.php)

Damon, look at using lists instead, much quicker to render, any probs gimme a shout.

I second this; dl would define your list, dt would define the print item, and dl would represent the values of the format to be downloaded.

[Stationery-Direct]

I second this; dl would define your list, dt would define the print item, and dl would represent the values of the format to be downloaded.

But what is the benefit of making all those changes when it works perfectly fine as is?

[cmcp]

works perfectly fine as is

Visually, but take away the look and it has no structure. This could be acheived with the attributes (happy FF? ;) ) mentioned above, else a definition list would add a relationship to the main item and it's children links.