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

Re: [CSS2.1] Anonymous table objects details

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:50:12 +0800
Message-ID: <4EBBBA74.3030703@csail.mit.edu>
To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
CC: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
Being someone who looked at this section and it's implementation in
Gecko for fun, I have almost the same experience you just have.

(11/11/10 18:39), Simon Sapin wrote:
> First, is "treat a box as if it had 'display: none"' the same as
> "remove it" or is there a reason to keep the longer phrasing?

It's the same in Gecko. I don't fully understand the phrasing either,
since a 'display: none' thing, no matter what that thing is, should not
generate a box at all. I guess the reason why there's wording like this
is because this section was thought up as a "fixup" algorithm so you
have to "assume if something had existed, or happened, bra bra."

I propose we just rename this section as "Table Model Details" (so we
can do things like dropping boxes instead of just generating new
anonymous boxes as the section title indicates).

> Is it correct that every box removed in 1.3 would also be removed in
> 1.4 *unless* it is the first or last child of its parent? (This may
> simplify the implementation.)

As far as I can tell, yes.

> About "proper table descendant". This only apply to a sibling S of a
> child C of P. So S is also a child of P. Is it correct that the only
> way for a direct child (at this step) not to be a proper table
> descendant is if it is misparented? (As defined in step 3.2)

As far as I can tell, yes. But I want to warn you that it appears to me
that this little condition doesn't match existing implementations and it
seems to me that the whole "proper table descendant" concept is
unnecessary. See my suggested change[1] and a little clarification[2].

> Later:
>     3.1 For each 'table-cell' box C in a sequence of consecutive
> internal table and 'table-caption' siblings, if C's parent is not a
> 'table-row' then generate an anonymous 'table-row' box around C and
> all consecutive siblings of C that are 'table-cell' boxes.
> This seems to be only about cells being in rows. Why is "a sequence of
> consecutive internal table and 'table-caption' siblings" mentioned?

I had exactly the same comment here. The "a sequence of xxxx" parts are
likely just redundant.

Thank you for pointing out pretty much all the editorial issues I
promised to bring up in [1] but failed to do so. :p

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Oct/0567
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Nov/0122

Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 11:50:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:52 UTC