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

RE: [CSS2.1] min-/max-width on *table-*

From: John Jansen <John.Jansen@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:13:16 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C340671BECD4364E8F9EBA27E8E231322DF8451E@DF-M14-04.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:33 PM
> To: John Jansen
> Cc: Øyvind Stenhaug; www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [CSS2.1] min-/max-width on *table-*
> 
> On 03/10/2011 04:22 PM, John Jansen wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org]
> On
> >> Behalf Of Øyvind Stenhaug
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 8:29 AM
> >> To: www-style@w3.org
> >> Subject: [CSS2.1] min-/max-width on *table-*
> >>
> >> The resolution of issue 170
> >> (<http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-170>) says to make
> >> min-/max- height on table-row/table-row-group/table-cell undefined.
> >> But what about min-/max-width (which was also mentioned in that
> thread)?
> >>
> >> Those properties are said to apply to table, inline-table and all
> >> table-* elements except table-row and table-row-group, but section
> >> 10.4 doesn't consider those display types at all and I don't see any
> >> mention of "min- "/"max-" in chapter 17.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Øyvind Stenhaug
> >> Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
> >>
> > Hi Øyvind,
> >
> > Thank you for your feedback. The CSSWG resolved not to make these
> > changes to the CSS 2.1 specification[1], and to leave it undefined. We
> > will be reevaluating this issue for errata and future versions of CSS.
> 
> John, the WG did not reject any changes requested by Øyvind. We
> addressed his issue, which is specifically, to address min-/max-width on table
> rows/groups/cells. We happened to address it by making it *explicitly*
> undefined, but Øyvind was not asking for a particular definition.
> 
> If Øyvind does not agree with our method of addressing his concern, then he
> should make that known, but his feedback was /accepted/, not /rejected/.
> 
> ~fantasai
My apologies for the confusion. Fantasai is correct.

-John Jansen
Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 16:13:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:38 GMT