[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] how to specify table width in HTML export
From: |
Nick Dokos |
Subject: |
Re: [O] how to specify table width in HTML export |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:42:48 -0400 |
Michael Hannon <address@hidden> wrote:
> > From: Nick Dokos <address@hidden>
> >
> > Stephen J. Barr <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> This seems like a simple question but I can't seem to find the answer?
> >> How do I specify the table width for an org-table that I will export
> >> to HTML?
> >>
> >
> > Not sure about the real HTMl syntax, or whether this is the best
> > solution (I'd imagine CSS would be better *if* it can be done with CSS)
> > but the following:
> >
> > #+ATTR_HTML: width="100"
> > | col1 | col2 |
> > |------+------|
> > | 1 | 3 |
> > | | |
> >
> > gets translated into an HTML table with an opening tag like this:
> >
> > <table border="2" cellspacing="0"
> > cellpadding="6" rules="groups" frame="hsides"
> > width="100">
> >
> > Does that do the trick?
>
> Indeed, I think CSS would be a better approach. And of course I don't know
> what this particular application is, but it's usually better to specify the
> width of objects as a percentage of the overall width.
>
Just to make sure
#+ATTR_HTML: width="50%"
is just the "same" as far as the HTML exporter is concerned: it'll just blindly
tack it to the <table ...> tag.
> This is discussed, for instance, at:
>
> http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_table.asp
>
Nice reference, thanks! Particularly for those (like me) whose CSS fu is
weak to non-existent.
> Here's a line from one of my old .org files that shows the syntax:
>
> #+STYLE: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="./junk.css" />
>
> It's also possible to embed the styling information directly in the Org-mode
> file, but I find that to be less convenient, as you then have to re-export to
> make a change to the style.
>
> Caveat: I haven't done any HTML exporting to speak of lately, certainly none
> that has involved CSS, so it may be that the syntax has changed (i.e.,
> compared to the above STYLE directive).
>
I think things have not changed in this area.
Nick