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

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

From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:55:33 +0000
To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
CC: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <07349ECFC3608F48BC3B10459913E70B1032057C@TK5EX14MBXC140.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Monday, December 06, 2010 3:39 AM Øyvind Stenhaug wrote:
> 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-

> proper
> > ty) 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.

Fixed

--
Thanks,
Arron Eicholz



Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:56:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:59:28 GMT