- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:50:35 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Jan 23, 2009, at 9:31 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > The only reason this might not work is if you *really* want a > shrinkwrapped containing block around the inline blocks, frex to > provide a background. In that case, however, you can *right now* just > add another containing <div>, make *it* display:table with auto > margins, and then make the <ul> display:table-cell. In the future > we'll have the ability to *tell* blocks to shrinkwrap, and in the > limit he can use ul::outside to generate the display:table block > through CSS rather than inserting it into the markup. The layout can also be achieved with inline-blocks and text- align:center. No table displays needed, AFAICT. And that has the advantage of working in IE6 or later. > So, this isn't a *real* use-case, in that it does not require any > changes to CSS to get the desired rendering. I'd rather ignore it. > If this type of markup (a display:table block immediately followed by > inappropriate children) *is* necessary to deal with, though, then we > do need to sort out whitespace issues so that we can accurately tell > when we need to auto-wrap the contents of a table block and when we > don't. I think we have to be very careful about ignoring things that would break existing layouts.
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 17:51:16 UTC