I'm currently attempting to write a dynamic table where the heading width is split in equal widths equally across the required number of columns (PHP variable "$numberofcolumns").
Firstly, could someone please give me a hand popping some more code in that would make it easy for me to calculate the table heading widths dynamically? So far I have only got as far as turning the php variable into a JavaScript variable $noofcolumns -> var columnno as shown below - I'm now completely lost!
My total table width remaining to use is 80% (20% already used for a fixed width column).
i.e.
if columnno = 3 -> table heading width = 80% / 3
if columnno = 4 -> table heading width = 80% / 4
etc...
I have tried using the calc() CSS3 function previously, but this doesn't display correctly in a fair amount of browsers! (hence the requirement for javaScript!) Due to this issue, it would be easier if the outcome of the JavaScript code gave a value in pixels!
<script type="text/javascript">
var columnno = <?php echo $numberofcolumns; ?>;
</script>
Secondly, am I correct in thinking that I can retrieve the calculated JavaScript variable (as javaScript is client side...) by using a PHP function such as: $_REQUEST['javascript_variable_name_here']?
<script type="text/javascript">
var columnno = <?php echo $numberofcolumns; ?>;
var headingWidth = Math.floor(80 / columnno);
var lastHeadingWidth = 80 - headingWidth;
// now you assign these values to your columns. I'd suggest you use jQuery, assign a class to each column (col1, col2, etc., using PHP), and then:
// we assume i = 1 is that 20% fixed column
for(i = 2; i < columnno; i++) {
$('.col' + i).css('width', headingWidth + '%');
}
$('.col' + columnno).css('width', lastHeadingWidth + '%');
</script>
Why Math.floor and lastHeadingWidth? If you divide 80 by 3 and then multiply the result by 3 you'll find out you are missing 0.0000000000001 pixels (it's all about internal number representation and precision). Also, some browsers automatically round float values to 3-4 decimal places, so accounting for this difference yourself is more consistent. Yes, for odd column numbers the last one will be slightly larger.