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: Sun, 09 May 2010 08:42:42 -0400
Message-ID: <4BE6ADC2.1080607@mit.edu>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 5/9/10 3:27 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> 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)?
>
> The effort of changing the spec to match my expectation is here is
> very little.  Certainly other stuff needs attention, but changing
> abspos elements from "leave a placeholder" to "don't leave a
> placeholder" is pretty small in terms of the table-cell creation algo.

If you're going to take the easy way out and leave auto-offset behavior 
completely undefined (even more so than "normal", note), then yes.  I 
personally would object to the WG doing that.

> In terms of author expectations, the expectations of this author are
> that an abspos element leaves the same trace behind it as a
> display:none element, since that's how it appears to work in every
> other context.

Hmm.  OK, fair.

> Some quick testing shows that instead, setting float appears to make
> the element ignore its display:table-cell value

Yes, see CSS2.1 section 9.7.

> and thus get itself wrapped in an anonymous table-cell.  Is that what actually happens in
> the layout engine?

Yes.

> I acknowledge that it may not be a realistic change, given the current
> interop.  But it's one that leads to a more intuitive model, and I'd
> like to pursue the possibility at least somewhat.

OK, but then you actually need to spec the behavior for this possibility 
instead of leaving it completely undefined.

-Boris
Received on Sunday, 9 May 2010 12:43:17 GMT

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