W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [CSS21] Concern about anonymous table objects and whitespace

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:08:08 -0500
Message-ID: <497942A8.70300@mit.edu>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: www-style@w3.org

fantasai wrote:
> Can I get a bug #?

For which, exactly?

> I agree with Tab,
>   <ul style="display: table">
>     <li style="display: table-cell"/>
>     <li style="display: table-cell"/>
>   </ul>
> needs to work.

OK, I can live with that.

While we're here, all that discussion was about the cell/row/rowgroup 
aspect of things.  There's also the colgroup/column aspect.  If we 
require a table around cells, I see no problem with requiring it around 
columns as well.  There is currently no requirement that column groups 
be synthesized around columns directly in a table, as far as I can tell, 
so that would leave nothing else to be done here.

That said, the currently specified behavior for a table-cell child of a 
table-column-group is to generate a table, rowgroup, and row between 
them, right?  And then nothing happens with this box?  In general, it's 
not clear what happens with boxes that are descendants of 
table-column-groups and aren't table-columns, or boxes that are 
descendants of table-columns.  I would vote that all of these should 
just be suppressed.

So my proposal is that this section should look as follows:

1) Leave the current rule 1.
2) Change rule 2 to say that in that situation the table-row box
    is suppresed.
3) Change rule 3 to say that in that situation the table-column box
    is suppressed
4) Change rule 4 to say that in that situation the row group, column
    group, or caption is suppressed.
5) Drop rule 5.
6) Change rule 6 to say that the child box should be suppressed.
7) Change rule 7 to say that the child box should be suppressed.
8) Change rule 8 to say that the child box should be suppressed.
9) Make it clear that the rules need to be applied in this order.
    Otherwise rule 6 could suppress the cells above before rule 1
    has a chance to create the table row.
10) Make it clear that children of table-column boxes and
     non-table-column children of table-column-group boxes should
     be suppressed.

This will leave one area where things are a little weird, and that's in 
handling rows directly inside a table.  Per the spec as it stands it 
sounds like no rowgroup should be wrapped around the rows.  At the 
moment, Gecko will put anonymous rows inside a rowgroup that spans as 
many rows as it can, so that this HTML:

   <table>
     <tr>
       <td rowspan="0">Spanning the whole table?</td>
       <td>Second column</td>
     </tr>
     <tr><td>Second column?</td></tr>
   </table>

renders identically to this XHTML:

   <table xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
     <tr>
       <td rowspan="0">Spanning the whole table?</td>
       <td>Second column</td>
     </tr>
     <tr><td>Second column?</td></tr>
   </table>

It looks like these also render identically in Opera and Safari.  Safari 
ignores the rowspan, while Opera treats it as Gecko does (spanning the 
whole table).  Wrapping each row in a separate <tbody> makes both Gecko 
and Opera not span past the first row, so both seem to be generating a 
rowgroup around the rows in the XHTML case, or at least treating the 
layout as if such a rowgroup exists.  In the case of Gecko we do in fact 
generate the rowgroup.  It might make sense to require this behavior, 
though I can't offhand think of a way the difference can be detected 
other than this rowspan="0" thing...  That would be a rule inserted 
between my proposed rule 1 and rule 2.

-Boris
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 04:09:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:15 GMT