- From: Reg Me Please <regmeplease@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:06:18 +0200
- To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Cc: CSS 3 W3C Group <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 10:53 +0200, Christoph Päper wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr.: > > It's not that they're 'different', it's that, given the current table > > model, table cells are children of table rows. > > I never understood why the CSS table model does only support row- > based tables and not column-based ones. I do understand that mixing > both features is complicated. > > Rows are the natural default choice, of course, considering usual > block progression which is downwards. Also, HTML does it this way. Rows are the natural default choice as the HTML is rows-centric. With "tables by columns" (<TC> ?) , block progression would be rightwards. And there could be also different horizontal and vertical progression directions just to take care of other cultures then the western one (left to right, top to bottom). Again, tables are 2D and byte streams are 1D. Thus a number of implicit constraints.
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 09:07:09 UTC