HTML Scrollbar

[SaikonoYume]

I'm currently working on a school project in Dreamweaver and I'm fairly HTML/CSS/any programming language inept. I'm using tables (I know, I'm a horrible person), and I need a scrollbar in one of them. I've looked at several tutorials, several suggestions in this forum and others, and they haven't helped.

I think part of the problem is that my navigation buttons run down the side of computer, and I want the text next to it. To do that, I simply put a table within a table. But now I have now idea what to do with the codes most people give me.

Still, like I said, I'm fairly inept at web programming. If anyone could help me with this, I'd be very, very grateful.

[boogyman]

<table style="overflow: scroll">

[Twey]

I'm fairly HTML/CSS/any programming language inept.HTML and CSS aren't programming languages :)

There's really no need to use tables here, I think... it should be easy enough to do with CSS. One <div> down the side with the icons, floated left, and another, also floated left, with everything else.

[techno_race]

Yes, HTML and CSS are programming languages. So are JavaScript, Java, PHP, ASP, C, C+, C++, VBScript and Perl.

[Twey]

HTML is a markup language, and CSS is a stylesheet language. Neither is a programming language.

VBScript and Javascript are (surprisingly) classified as scripting languages, although the boundary between programming languages and scripting languages is blurred: a scripting language is a programming language designed for rapid development. Perl and PHP (and Python too) are debatable for this reason, but I think most people would agree with me in defining them as scripting languages. C+ does not exist, and ASP is not a language of itself, but a technology by which the output from various languages can be embedded into HTML. The most common language used with ASP is VBScript.

[SaikonoYume]

Thanks so much for all your help, and sorry to have started a little fight... I can't believe I said "programming language" anyhow, since I'm in a class that talks about the differences between programming and markup languages.

[Twey]

It was a discussion, not a fight, and techno_race seems to have benefitted from it, so all is good. :)

Back to the original topic, there isn't even a real temptation to use tables for this sort of layout. Some can get quite complex to do with CSS, but this isn't one of them. You can give any element a scrollbar by applying overflow: scroll; as pissa said, or you can use overflow: auto; to show scrollbars only when the content is large enough to require them.

[mwinter]

VBScript and Javascript are (surprisingly) classified as scripting languages, although the boundary between programming languages and scripting languages is blurred: a scripting language is a programming language designed for rapid development.

Another way to define them is to consider dependency. Scripting languages usually depend upon a larger program; they are embedded in, or hosted by, something else.

Mike

[Twey]

Hmm. I don't like that definition, since it's perfectly possible to find Java interpreters, which nevertheless doesn't make Java a scripting language, and likewise it's theoretically possible to build compilers for any of the many scripting languages in the wild today (thus I'm sure there are many, but I can't think of any off the top of my head), but again, that doesn't make them programming languages.

[mburt]

but again, that doesn't make them programming languages.
HTML, hence, hypertext markup-language.

[mwinter]

Hmm. I don't like that definition, since it's perfectly possible to find Java interpreters [...]

But Java wasn't designed to be interpreted, nor does it depend on a larger system. It does depend on the JVM, but that's just a means to an end. In itself, Java is self-sufficient.



[...] likewise it's theoretically possible to build compilers for any of the many scripting languages in the wild today [...]

However, I would assume that those languages would still depend on something to provide the features that the host would normally have provided. If not, it's not really the same language any more.

Mike

[Twey]

But Java wasn't designed to be interpreted, nor does it depend on a larger system. It does depend on the JVM, but that's just a means to an end. In itself, Java is self-sufficient.Well, that is an interpretation of a sort (although admittedly of bytecode, not Java). Also, the JVM provides features necessary for the language.
However, I would assume that those languages would still depend on something to provide the features that the host would normally have provided. If not, it's not really the same language any more.Where do you define what's needed by the language (do you mean every feature that's defined for the language in its specification?), and how do you draw the line between the language and its environment? Would you consider the standard libraries to be part of the language, or part of the environment, and why?

[mwinter]

[The JVM] Well, that is an interpretation of a sort (although admittedly of bytecode, not Java).

As I wrote, that's only a means to an end. If a universal machine language existed, Java would surely use that instead. The JVM is closer to an emulator than an interpreter, though over a hypothetical machine defined by the JVM instruction set.



Where do you define what's needed by the language (do you mean every feature that's defined for the language in its specification?), and how do you draw the line between the language and its environment?

I would say that the specification defines the innate capabilities of a language. The host provides anything else. For example, the language will define data types and operations, as well as a basic set of functions yet it may have no I/O capabilities of its own. If they are needed, the host must provide them.



Would you consider the standard libraries to be part of the language, or part of the environment, and why?

Part of the language: they must exist for every implementation (otherwise they are not standard).

Out of curiosity, do you enjoy these debates?

Mike

[Twey]

As I wrote, that's only a means to an end. If a universal machine language existed, Java would surely use that instead.But surely that could be said of any interpreted language. If hardware were capable of running Perl code directly, for example, Perl wouldn't bother with an interpreter.
I would say that the specification defines the innate capabilities of a language. The host provides anything else. For example, the language will define data types and operations, as well as a basic set of functions yet it may have no I/O capabilities of its own. If they are needed, the host must provide them.What I was attempting to ask is how you determine that I/O capabilities are necessary. Simple Turing-completeness, or something else?
Part of the language: they must exist for every implementation (otherwise they are not standard).Oh, yes, silly question, sorry.
Out of curiosity, do you enjoy these debates?I find them informative and useful. I suppose that counts as enjoying them somewhat.

[mwinter]

If a universal machine language existed, Java would surely use that instead.

But surely that could be said of any interpreted language. If hardware were capable of running Perl code directly, for example, Perl wouldn't bother with an interpreter.

Interpreted languages are typically used to avoid the compilation and linking steps during development. Java still has the former. It's only "interpreted" because most machines (but not all) cannot directly execute the resulting bytecode, and Java tries to be a compile-once, run-anywhere language.



What I was attempting to ask is how you determine that I/O capabilities are necessary. Simple Turing-completeness, or something else?

Do you need them to accomplish a particular task whilst scripting an application? If so, they're necessary. :)

Mike