W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2006

Re: table row order invariance vs. incremental layout efficiency (was Re: Specifying intrinsic width and table layout behavior)

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:53:25 -0700
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20060916215325.GA19675@ridley.dbaron.org>
On Saturday 2006-09-16 10:36 +0100, David Woolley wrote:
> > the constraints of Web-compatibility) requires doing two passes over the
> > table, the first for non-column-spanning cells and the second for
> Are you sure you mean two, rather than three; don't you need to an additional
> pass to actually render the text into the finally chosen width?

I'm discussing intrinsic width calculation; rendering at the final
column widths, if they change, is another pass.  However, with
incremental rendering of long tables, they may remain constant across
many of the updates.

> Also, other than that it doesn't require author education to enable, does
> this really gain you much compared with table-layout: fixed?  In fact, as
> it is a change in algorithm, won't you still have the author education
> problem that I suspect is the main reason that table-layout: fixed is
> almost never used, as you will need to retain the current mode as default.

No, since both options are within the constraints of Web-compatibility.
Some browsers currently do one and some the other.


L. David Baron                                <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
           Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, Mozilla Corporation

Received on Saturday, 16 September 2006 21:53:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:26 UTC