birdbrain
msg:4399306 | 8:52 am on Dec 19, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Hi there spongenika,
try it like this...
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="language" content="english">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
<title></title>
<style type="text/css">
table {
border-collapse:collapse;
}
table td, table th {
padding:0;
}
img {
display:block;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table class="tbl" border="0">
<tr>
<td><img src="images/logov1.gif" alt="" width="341" height="20"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="images/logov2.gif" alt="" width="341" height="100"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>
|
|
Further reading:-
Also note that the table element should no be used for layout purposes.
Further reading:-
birdbrain
|
penders
msg:4399312 | 9:08 am on Dec 19, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Basically the space you are seeing below the image has nothing to do with table spacing/padding (since you have already removed those), but because images are inline elements by default. Inline elements sit on the baseline of the surrounding (imaginary) text. The gap below the baseline is the space allowed for the descenders of the "g", "j", etc. By changing the img elements to display:block, they no longer sit on the baseline and the space goes away.
...and as birdbrain says :)
|
birdbrain
msg:4399313 | 9:14 am on Dec 19, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Hi there penders,
I believe that my link to the Eric A. Meyer article provided all the relevant information. ;)
birdbrain
|
penders
msg:4399337 | 10:24 am on Dec 19, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Yeah true - I'd actually written it before I saw your post, but thought it still relevant as a brief summary. :)
|
spongenika
msg:4399348 | 11:22 am on Dec 19, 2011 (gmt 0) |
img {
display:block;
}
It really works. Thanks a lot.
|
alt131
msg:4399369 | 12:58 pm on Dec 19, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Hi spongenika, and a warm welcome to WebmasterWorld :)
Pleased you have a solution - and thanks for identifying what made the difference - that will benefit later readers with the same problem.
| I believe that my link to the Eric A. Meyer article provided all the relevant information. |
|
he he, my first thought was "Move over Meyers, Make way for Penders" ;)
Birdbrain you have to agree that was a fine summary - and it can be very helpful to have an overview of a technical article before diving into the detail.
|
birdbrain
msg:4399376 | 1:10 pm on Dec 19, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Hi there alt131,
of course, I am sad to say, I fully agree. ;)
It was really just sour grapes on my part, as my pr - latin small letter e with acute - cis skills are non-existent. :(
birdbrain
|
lucy24
msg:4399464 | 5:49 pm on Dec 19, 2011 (gmt 0) |
é
In the Latin-1 character set and should therefore behave perfectly well in almost any Forum you could name ;)
|
Jonesy
msg:4401176 | 5:07 pm on Dec 24, 2011 (gmt 0) |
That did not render correctly here in either
konqueror, FireFox, Chrome, or Opera.
hmmmmm... But it did in Epiphany.
|
penders
msg:4401202 | 6:28 pm on Dec 24, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| That did not render correctly here... |
|
You need to manually change the encoding of this page to UTF-8. (It doesn't render correctly for me either by default. webmasterworld.com does not appear to send the encoding as part of the Content-Type header(?) and on Windows this defaults to ISO-8859-1, so I see 2 characters (capital A tilde + Copyright) where the latin small letter e with acute should be.)
|
|
