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

Re: layout idea

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:41:34 -0700
Message-ID: <7e1f93760903191841m19387470pe2cb3e0e0aab21f1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, Jonathan Snook <jonathan.snook@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> In (b), you say that display:table-cell elements are 'tacked on' to
> the structure produced implicitly by table-rows and table-columns.
> So, given this markup:
> <style>
> body {
>  display: table;
>  table-rows: 2;
> }
> .cell {
>   display: table-cell;
> }
> </style>
> <body>
>   <div .cell />
>  <div .cell />
> </body>
> Would you expect a three-row table, with the first two rows being
> anonymous rows created implicitly by the table-rows:2 declaration, and
> the third being an anonymous row generated around the <div .cell>
> blocks?

Oh, I really hope not. I would hope they would flow into the first row, and
that if you wanted something that was only one column wide that you would
put table-columns:1 into the body (thus forcing the second div into the
second row).

> If yes, then I think I like it.  It solves the problem of just what to
> *do* with the non-positioned (or table-positioned) display:table-cell
> elements in an unambiguous and satisfactory manner.
> > I think that would probably not be the default behavior.  If you specify
> some initial rows and columns, it seems like you should still behave exactly
> like a table with table-layout auto specified by default.  Intelligent
> fitting of cells into the grid could be achieved by either specifying a new
> kind of table-layout value, e.g., table-layout: grid, or by specifying a
> value in table-position.... table-position: fit ....   I think I'd prefer
> specifying this using table-position.
> I like table-position:fit.  It keeps us closer to the table model as
> it exists now, and puts the burden on wrapping or extending on the
> individual cells.  Good call.

I don't really understand that. It seems to be making it more complicated
than necessary. It seems to me that if you put table-columns:n into the
display:table parent element, then that means you want all the
display:table-cell children to conform to a grid that is n columns wide. If
no table-columns number is specified, and there are no child elements that
have display:table-row set on them, then you will have all your table-cells
in one row, and any other rows you create via 'table-rows' would have empty

> > We pretty much agree, except I want the initial value to be "the way
> things work today" and to have a new value for table-position to get the
> fitting behavior we all like.
> Cool, and I like the idea of table-position:fit.

Not me. It seems totally unnecessary.
Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 01:42:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:25 UTC