W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > December 2010

Re: height-applies-to-00[123]

From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 12:38:54 +0100
To: "Arron Eicholz" <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vnaim4tnbunlto@oyvinds-desktop>
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 18:25:34 +0100, Arron Eicholz  
<Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:50 AM Øyvind Stenhaug wrote:
>> Thanks, though I don't think height-applies-to-004 should have been
>> included in that change.
>
> Maybe but the spec isn't updated yet  
> (http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css2-src/visudet.html#the-height-property)  
> so technically according to the spec in section 10.5 none of the cases  
> should have changed. I am kinda flying blind here since the spec isn't  
> updated but I think we agreed that table-row could not have height on it  
> as well thus 004 should be included in this change.

The 'height' property applies to table row groups according to section  
10.5, but its meaning in that case is undefined according to a later  
section, as mentioned in my original mail.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:25:13 +0100, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>  
wrote:

> Spec's section 17.5.3 states
>
> "CSS 2.1 does not define the meaning of 'height' on row groups."

(http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css2-src/tables.html#height-layout)

It's possible there was some agreement on table-row as well but I could  
only find issues regarding percentage heights and min-/max-height.

-- 
Øyvind Stenhaug
Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Monday, 6 December 2010 11:37:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 December 2010 11:37:50 GMT