Talk

Difference between revisions of "Modifying a table in an Article"

From Joomla! Documentation

 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
*This is a new article linked to from [[Inserting a table into an Article]]. Propose that scope is insert/remove columns and rows, split and merge cells. I think that table and row property dialogues are out of scope of this short article. Comments? [[User:Jonflgiles|jonflgiles]] 17:03, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 
*This is a new article linked to from [[Inserting a table into an Article]]. Propose that scope is insert/remove columns and rows, split and merge cells. I think that table and row property dialogues are out of scope of this short article. Comments? [[User:Jonflgiles|jonflgiles]] 17:03, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 
*Initial content written for this. Please comment on general layout. Would it be better to use headings to divide the different types of edit? [[User:Jonflgiles|jonflgiles]] 17:34, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 
*Initial content written for this. Please comment on general layout. Would it be better to use headings to divide the different types of edit? [[User:Jonflgiles|jonflgiles]] 17:34, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
*Looks fine.  General layout is good for now.  Stuff will get tweaked as we learn what works and what looks good in different output formats (ie. not just wiki) so I wouldn't worry too much about it right now. Good work. [[User:Chris Davenport|Chris Davenport]] 19:37, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 18:37, 22 June 2008

  • This is a new article linked to from Inserting a table into an Article. Propose that scope is insert/remove columns and rows, split and merge cells. I think that table and row property dialogues are out of scope of this short article. Comments? jonflgiles 17:03, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Initial content written for this. Please comment on general layout. Would it be better to use headings to divide the different types of edit? jonflgiles 17:34, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Looks fine. General layout is good for now. Stuff will get tweaked as we learn what works and what looks good in different output formats (ie. not just wiki) so I wouldn't worry too much about it right now. Good work. Chris Davenport 19:37, 22 June 2008 (EDT)