W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2007

Re: Positioned elements

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:49:09 -0700
Message-ID: <46FB2835.9080009@terrainformatica.com>
To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>

L. David Baron wrote:
> On Wednesday 2007-09-26 21:31 -0500, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> Kornel Lesinski wrote:
>>> I think the latter:
>>> "The effect of 'position:relative' on table-row-group, 
>>> table-header-group, table-footer-group, table-row, table-column-group, 
>>> table-column, table-cell, and table-caption elements is undefined."
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#choose-position
>> I don't recall that being there before.  Must have been added so CSS21 can 
>> actually exit CR...
> It was added in response to Issue #20 on the issues list for
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030915/ , which, given the lack
> of a URL, was presumably raised by Ian, and concerns what happens
> when the above elements get a stacking context (due to
> 'position:relative' or 'opacity') being undefined.
David and what is the problem with table/cells and position:relative?
Something in principle or just "not-implemented"?

I understand why position:relative makes no sense for table-row
and table-column but for table-cells I see no problems.

I think that table-cell with, let's say, position:fixed really makes
no sense but limitation for position:relative appears as artificial.

Or we just need to declare the whole @position non-applicable for
elements with display other than block and inline-block.
Which is in my opinion significantly better and fair.

Andrew Fedoniouk.
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 03:50:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:30 UTC