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

Re: starting a new table row

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:40:59 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0906171040x63810cddi6ff1a3708921130e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> Brad Kemper wrote:
>>
>> I dislike having more and more different display values, especially one
>> that is almost, but not quite, identical to another.  I would prefer a new
>> value for 'clear' that affected rows instead of floats.
>> .my_table_structure > div { display: table-cell }
>> .my_table_structure > div:nth-of-type(4n+1) { clear:row; }
>
> This doesn't seem that unreasonable, though it raises the issue of what to
> do for non-table elements when "clear:row" is set.  Presumably it'd just
> have no effect.

This would be my assumption as well.

>> Perhaps this sort of clearing could even be applied to an element in the
>> contents of a table cell, to force its nearest table-cell ancestor into a
>> new row.
>
> That's much much harder to implement than just allowing it on the table
> cell, for what it's worth.  I _think_ the table-cell case could be done in a
> few hours with very little performance cost; the other would take a great
> deal more time; I can't even speculate as to whether it could be done
> without performance costs at this point.
>
> Are there obvious use cases for it?

I can't think of any off the top of my head that couldn't be done
equally well by signaling the clearing on the table-cell.  In any
case, this could always be done with the child-matcher pseudoclass
when that finally makes it in.  I'm betting perf would be similar.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 17:41:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:18 GMT