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

Re: layout idea

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 02:36:52 -0700
Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Jonathan Snook <jonathan.snook@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9089F9E7-27CB-42F5-811D-E3709F3379CD@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>

On Mar 20, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

> <table> works pretty well already for tabular data.
> There is a need for layout managers of different types (grid alike  
> LM is just one of them) .
> I do not think that it makes real sense to try to fit all possible  
> cases into that display:table.
>
> Consider these four elements:
>
> |--- 100px---|-----------1* ----------|
> |-------2* -----------|------ 1* -----|
>
> where elements replaced into two rows. In each row elements have the  
> same height equal to tallest element
> and some elements have flex widths (and heights). There is no way in  
> current CSS to define this. At all.
> Neither display:table nor floats will help.
> I mean trying to make display:table to serve other roles than just  
> presenting tabular arrangements will
> make display:table overcomplicated and will not be a complete and  
> expandable solution anyway.
>

I did not mean to imply that the table display mechanisms was the end- 
all display model to rule them all. Just that it is extremely useful  
for a huge number of Web page layouts, especially when uncoupled from  
the semantics of the HTML TABLE elements. There is a reason so many  
authors used them so much, and why we've been trying to hack together  
something ever since that is more semantic using floats and  
positioning and negative margins and such that would work almost as  
well as tables always have.
Received on Saturday, 21 March 2009 09:37:30 GMT

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