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: Mon, 24 May 2010 10:25:54 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikCGf99hofxK-cPpX4Jb2hfzvwrZxHQxB3VaL4t@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 5/21/10 7:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> In that case, what's your mental model of the box tree in this case:
>>>
>>>  <div style="display: table">
>>>    <div style="display: table-cell"/>
>>>    <div style="position: absolute"/>
>>>    <div style="display: table-row"/>
>>>  </div>
>>>
>>> What are the siblings of the absolutely positioned box?  What is its
>>> parent?
>>>  What are the siblings' parents?  Why does any of that make any sense?
>>
>> Excellent question.  To the spec!  (Or rather, the proposed spec text
>> from fantasai.)
>>
>> By rule 2.1, the markup is repaired by wrapping the first div, and
>> only the first div, in an anonymous table row.
>
> Hmmm.... yeah, ok.  That would be a bug in fantasai's spec, then.

There is a bug in the spec here, but the behavior caused by this
particular case isn't a bug (it may not be optimal, but it's not
obviously incorrect).


>> (In case it is not clear, the<anon>  doesn't wrap the abspos because
>> the definition of "consecutive siblings" given in the proposed spec
>> text specifically ignores abspos elements.)
>
> This wasn't a problem with my original spec proposal, since it explicitly
> inserted an in-flow placeholder for the position:absolute before doing
> anything else.

Right, but we'd like to avoid having a placeholder that affects the
behavior of the table.  ^_^  The behavior I want is in all cases
identical to that of having a display:none there.


>> We then follow my proposed guidelines.  The first rule that matches is
>> the third one, "following table row", so the auto position is the top
>> left corner of the border box of the third div (argh, copypaste type
>> in my previous email!).
>
> That seems buggy to me; if there were another cell after the abspos, your
> rules would put it at top left of that cell.  Leaving off that cell
> shouldn't cause it to move down to the next row in any sane definition of
> auto offsets.  But again, this is based on what looks like a bug in
> fantasai's spec to me.
>
>> This is a complex enough case that I'm not too worried about the
>> answer being intuitive, merely precisely specified.  I don't think the
>> answer is crazy, though; it's one of a few "reasonable" positions.
>
> I don't think it's particularly reasonable, sorry.

I think the current spec's behavior is okay here, but I wouldn't be
opposed to having the spec mandate wrapping in such a way that it
encloses the abspos too, thus making the auto position be the
top-right of the first div.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 24 May 2010 17:26:54 GMT

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