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

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2010-04-21

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 22:26:27 -0400
Message-ID: <4BE4CBD3.7090100@mit.edu>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 5/7/10 5:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> Yes, I'm okay with that.  The current behavior is definitely wrong
> from an authoring perspective, so I want to at least put in the effort
> to get it right, even if practicality means that we end up having to
> go with current behavior.

Is this really a good use of time, though?  Is this more important than 
other parts of CSS2.1 that need spec and implementation work and are at 
risk (run-in, the rest of the anonymous table stuff, etc)?

> In an ideal world, the abspos "bar" cell would *not* create a
> table-cell in the table it comes from, so that, for example, in the
> top-left case the second row would have "baz" below "bar" (rather than
> an "empty" space below bar, where an anonymous empty table-cell sits).

Would it, though?  Whose ideal world?  Right now every single UA I've 
tested that implements this stuff at all has the other behavior.  Do we 
have any data on whether websites depend on that?  Do we have any data 
on what author expectations are?

Would you expect the same behavior for floats as for abs-pos?  Why or 
why not?

Just to be clear, changing the behavior in Gecko will involve either 
major changes to table layout or major changes to the way out-of-flows 
are handled (or both).  I really don't see that being a priority in the 
sort of timeframe I would assume CSS2.1 is aiming at, given the market 
reality of interoperability with all other implementations.

-Boris
Received on Saturday, 8 May 2010 02:27:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:27 GMT