|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 01/06/08 16:59
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:22:38
GMT TonyV scribed:
> I've read that in XHTML 1.1, if you have a thead and tbody, you *must*
> have a tfoot. Also, according to the specification, it looks like all
> three *must* have at least one tr child element, with at least one th
> or td child element in it. Here's the spec I'm reading:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_table
> module
>
> My question is pretty simple. What if you want a table with just a
> thead and tbody section, but not with a tfoot section? I don't
> understand why I *must* have a cell defined in up to two sections (in
> this case, the tfoot section), cells which will be completely blank,
> which I suppose means I'll have to use some CSS to make sure it's not
> displayed, instead of just not having the section.
>
> Is there a standard practice for what to do if you have a thead and
> tbody but not a tfoot?
Yeah. I flip a tbird in the general direction of the w3c and eliminate the
extraneous crap from the page.
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|