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

Re: layout idea

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:26:49 -0700
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <3B55CC40-0CA6-41AC-8F27-9718C7C6D729@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Snook <jonathan.snook@gmail.com>

On Mar 16, 2009, at 5:17 AM, Jonathan Snook wrote:

>> It strikes me that all these methods, including Jonathan's,  
>> Andrew's, and Advanced Layout Module, (and to some extent, Grid  
>> Positioning) seek to create table-like structures. What they then  
>> add, which display:table-cell lacks, is:
>>
>> 1. the ability to do rowspans and colspans (i.e. the equivalent of  
>> using grid units for widths and heights [or edge positions]),
>> 2. the ability to have new rows specified without having a  
>> display:table-row element, and
>> 3. the ability to move content to cells in a different order than  
>> they appear in the source.
>
> The Matrix proposal also offers up another couple advantage:
>
> 4. The ability to overlap elements.

The visual formating model says that "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." But in theory it could be  
defined in such a way that allowed table cells to be moved into  
overlapping positions, at least when using the separated borders models.

I assume that "Matrix Layouts" does not allow for collapsed borders?

> 5. The ability to combine matrix, absolute, relative and static  
> content all within the same container.

A table-cell could be a containing block for positioned items,  
couldn't it? Is this still undefined too?


>
>
> I think these would be hard to extend within display:table-*
>
> -js
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 17:27:29 GMT

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