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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 09:59:50 -0700
Message-ID: <i2mdd0fbad1005090959k1f657d07t47d38857a7d3e859@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> 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.

Ah, no, I was certainly going to define the auto-offset behavior.
Luckily we have much less interop on that, so it's not so much a big
deal to redefine.  I was planning on it being the first of the
following that exists:
* the top-left corner of the border box of the following table-cell
* 1px to the right of the top-right corner of the border box of the
preceding table-cell
* the top-left corner of the padding box of the following table-row
* 1px below the bottom-left corner of the padding box of the preceding table-row
* the top-left corner of the padding box of the table


>> 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.

Indeed.

~TJ
Received on Sunday, 9 May 2010 17:00:43 GMT

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