W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2011

Re: `overflow: hidden` on tables for border rounding doesn't seem to be supported by the standard

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 12:36:24 +0100
Message-ID: <4EDA09B8.7060307@moonhenge.net>
To: www-style@w3.org, Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
On 02/12/2011 21:52, www-style@gtalbot.org wrote:
> Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> a écrit :
>
>> On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 03:47:47 +0100, Gérard Talbot
>> <www-style@gtalbot.org> wrote:
>>
>>> overflow applies to inline-table elements though according to
>>> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-217
>>>
>>> I can't help think that it's kinda weird ... overflow applies to
>>> inline-tables but not to fixed-width tables. <shrug>
>>
>> The text modified due to that issue was since superseded by
>> <http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-120> and
>> <http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-266>. Per the current spec
>> text, overflow does not apply to 'inline-table' nor 'table'.
>
> I do not read such in the issues you list. I do not see where it says or
> would suggest that overflow does not apply to inline-table.

Issue 266, my issue 6 contained therein.

Shame that the only one that didn't get pushed to errata was the one 
that was wrong.  Sorry guys :-(

In the Applies To line of the 'overflow' property, "non-replaced 
block-level elements, table cells, and inline-block elements" should 
have been changed to "block containers and table boxes" not to "block 
containers".

(In my defense, the change that was implemented to the Applies To line 
was proposed right from the start as part of the extensive mission[1] to 
clean up the box handling in CSS21; my issue above was pointing out that 
the prose describing the 'overflow' property had been (incorrectly as it 
now turns out) changed in the 2010-12-07 CR spec[2] but the Applies To 
line had not been updated to match it); this seemed to be an accidental 
omission since nobody had publicly questioned the validity of the change 
proposal.  (I'm now wondering whether it really was an omission.)  The 
fact remains, though, that I was probably the most active reviewer of 
the box cleanup mission and I'm disappointed not to have spotted this 
error.)

Gérard, would you mind summarizing what the browser support is for 
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/overflow-applies-to-013.htm. 
  This test is correct as per older versions of the spec, and if browser 
support for it is good then it should remain correct and the spec be 
fixed in errata.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jul/0383.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-CSS2-20101207/visufx.html#overflow

Apologies,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2011 11:37:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:47 GMT