Internet explorer Tables issue... <TD width='100px'> no longer works.

actually, hiding the width settings in the CSS did not work, as I have already experimented with this.  IE6 still has this issue on setting the width of a TD.

Second off, Using Div's instead of tables is very unsafe for css/javascript between browser types.  I recently did a lot of work for porsche trying to clean up these issues.  

I tend to stay away from Div's because of all those issues.  As you will notice, the very same site we are posting our content to at this moment is running off of tables to designate content positioning.  

I am more looking for an answer that may explain why such a simple table is not working in IE's version 6 browser.  

>> Using Div's instead of tables is very unsafe for css/javascript between browser types.

I am sorry, but I do not agree. CSS is by far the most browser-friendly way to design the layout of a website. Besides from the reasons stated in the link in my previous post, it is good design practice to use divs/css instead of tables, especially in a team maintained website. It is also the official recommendation from the W3C since 1998. So if seven year old recommendations are still being ignored it points to a lack of understanding on some developers part.
- From W3C:
"Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables."


>> I tend to stay away from Div's because of all those issues.

To me, it is always amazing to see how much work it takes to make people believe in CSS and separating content from presentation. At first, I too had a hard time giving up the tables and (more importantly) understanding why I had to do so. It may seem more easily to use tables for layout, and the first day it may very well be. But, after you really start to use and understand CSS you will clearly see why this is the way to go. You will be able to change the way your website looks without messing around with the html (or the server side) code (just look at http://www.csszengarden.com/). To do a complete website makeover will be a no-brainer. Also, keep in mind all the accessible pros that rdivilbiss mentions in his previous post. I assume you want to create standards-compliant sites that looks the same in all browsers? Then CSS is the way to go - believe me, it is better to edit one CSS file, instead of messing around in all your html pages that Dreamweaver created for you. Another good point is that if you are multiple people working on a web project, a clean code is a must. I sometimes find myself redoing or developing websites that someone else initially created, and then spending hours of valuable time just to figure out what the original code does. "If only everyone were using web standards and clean code" is a common thought I have in these situations. Dreamweaver is a great learning tool, but when you want to take your coding to the next level, you have to start thinking beyond the code that the program can suggest.

This is the artcle that convinced me to start write cleaner code and ditch the tables: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/journey/

"If you think about it, there are two ways to create standards-compliant sites: one that complies with the letter of web standards, and the other that complies with their spirit."

Best regards,
John

>> I am more looking for an answer that may explain why such a simple table is not working in IE's version 6 browser.

Oh, I forgot that part, sorry. Here we go - change this code:
--------------
<table width=100%><tr><td width='100px'>Menu</td><td width=*>Contents</td></tr></table>
--------------
...to this:
--------------
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="100px">Menu</td><td width="90%">Contents</td></tr></table>
--------------

John

Considering the links you provided, I will provide my own conclusions based on the "Why Tables Are Bad"

# Tables are usually more bytes of markup. (Longer to download, and more bytes of traffic for the host.)
---The bytes of markup it takes to send this are nothing compared to the average images/media located on an ordinary sites template.  
---Most people these days do no connect at less than 56k, and even in cases of 14K, this is not a notable difference to using alternatives


# Tables are usually slower to layout for the browser. (Takes longer for the user to see anything on the page.)
---This is entirely incorrect, as the position that pages gets loaded can be determined by servers broadcasting smaller sections through good programming practices with ASP of PHP.  Even table segments may be loaded, as it will be recognized, even as demonstrated on Experts-exchange

# Tables usually prevent incremental rendering. (Takes longer for the user to see anything on the page.)
---This is the same as the previous question, as the previous question primarily depends on this question.  The previous answer discusses both.

# Tables may require you to chop single, logical images into multiple ones. (This makes redesigns total hell, and also increases page load time [more http requests and more total bytes].)
---I cannot deny nor agree with this...  Tables can be used to split images, and re-display them with content to be used on top of it in design, but this is not a nessacary practice, as CSS provides relative positioning, inwhich tables may be positioned exclusively within another.



# Tables break text copying on some browsers. (That's annoying to the user.)
---Tables, Divs, and spans will break the pages against this in similar manners.  Usually, the content is broken apart logically by the separators layout.  At which points where the data is actually returned in less than copyable methods, then 1 of 2 things are to blame. 1 the designer is making a horiible use of content deviding, in whichcase will probably face the same issues if similar practices are used with Spans or Divs.  and #2, the page is designed to prevent viewers from copying its contents in an easy to read manner.


# Tables prevent certain layouts from working within them (like height:100% for child elements of <td>). (They limit what you can actually do in terms of layout.)
---Tables can be split and split and split.  If you have diffictulty positioning things within a table, you probably shouldn't be attempting to write a definitive list of reasons not to use tables


# Once you know CSS, table-based layouts usually take more time to implement. (A little effort up-front learning CSS pays off heavily in the end.)
---CSS is truly a flexible and powerful feature in web-page design, however, it is not intended to replace anything.  It is intended to expand and provide more universal and flexible modifications to all HTML Display Features.


# Tables are semantically incorrect markup for layout. (They describe the presentation, not the content.)
---If you take CSS out of the picture, Divs/Spans also do not describe these without the use of CSS Names, or HTML notes.  and With CSS, neither the Divs, spans, or tables are at the same advantage.


# Tables make life hell for those using screen readers. (Not only do you get the other benefits of CSS, you're also helping out the blind/partially-sighted. This is a Good Thing.)
---Agreed.  however, separating the content with Divs will cause the same issue.  so this question, (like most otheres here is geared towards the question, "Should we have content layout, or use pages the scroll everything like a text file?"


# Tables lock you into the current design and make redesigns MUCH harder than semantic HTML+CSS.
---Again, the same issues will occur with Divs or other methods of content separation.  The HTML+CSS Still requires the use of DIV/TABLE/SPAN.


Basically, I don't have any issue with people who use this.  This note is really just to express that there is not an effective difference between the two, and in some cases Tables do work better, in others, Div's work better.  It really depends on what your focus is for building up web pages.  

Better yet, don't mix px and percent in the table. Either fix the width for the table, or just fix the width of that cell and NONE of the others.

But I'd go with divs and CSS as well.

Don't expect pixel perfection. You won't get it anyway, and you'll stay sane longer. ;-)

Is that URL truly the page? Because it bears NO resemblence to the code you posted. None.

You have no quotes around attributes, for one. They NEED to be there. You have FONT tags, which are deprecated, you have nested tables which are completely screwing up your layout, and you're inconsistent in your measurements. And I have no clue what your stylesheet is screwing up.

I tested your last idea, to use " instead of '  which also did not work.  I have found in a few places so far that IE has had issues with this in V6 that hasn't been repaired yet.  I'm looking for a way to get tables work.  

Regarding your previous statement about how "CSS is by far the most browser-friendly way to design the layout of a website"...

I have had a great deal of time spent repairing this Browser-friendly method of site design using CSS, and DIVS.  Not to mention just text modifications with it.  The porsche site uses an extensive amount of CSS to designate a VERY SPECIFIC format.  If you review there CSS files, you will notice that there are Multiple instances of CSS Class names on a couple of there classes, The class is the same name, but one uses a special character that IE will count as being part of the same CSS Class name, where Netscape/Mozilla based browsers ignore.  

Thanks to the constant growth, and development of most HTML supporting Markup Languages, by different companies, These different Markup languages have inevidably grown differently within the different browsers, Like HTML's layout in General, CSS (as demon strated here), Java on different devices, Javascript on different browsers or OS's.  To speficy that one of these is better in ALL circumstances, is no more than an opinion.