W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2010

Re: [CSS21] Proposal for a replacement for section 17.2.1 (table anonymous objects)

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:02:18 -0400
Message-ID: <4BB347DA.1010407@mit.edu>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 3/31/10 2:39 AM, fantasai wrote:
> | 1.3 If a child C of a tabular container P is an anonymous inline box
> | that contains only white space, and its immediately preceding
> | and following siblings, if any, are proper table descendants of P
> | and are either 'table-caption' or internal table boxes,
> | then it is treated as if it had 'display: none'.
> | A box D is a proper table descendant of A if D can be a descendant
> | of A without causing the generation of any intervening 'table' or
> | 'inline-table' boxes.
> | [current rule 5, adjusted to match bz]
> | 1.4 If a box B is an anonymous inline containing only white space, and
> | it has two immediate siblings both of which are internal table boxes,
> | then it is treated as if it had 'display: none'.
> [new]

Still thinking through this, but why is rule 1.3 needed given rule 1.4? 
  And shouldn't table-caption be mentioned in rule 1.4?

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 13:02:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:25 GMT