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

Re: [CSS2.1] Anonymous table objects details

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:07:29 -0500
Message-ID: <4EBBE8B1.4000505@mit.edu>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 11/10/11 5:39 AM, Simon Sapin wrote:
> First, is "treat a box as if it had 'display: none"' the same as "remove
> it"

Yes.

> 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?

I _think_ so, 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)

I believe that is correct.

> 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?

Good question.  Seems like just saying that for any 'table-cell' C whose 
parent is not a 'table-row' a 'table-row' is generated around C and all 
consecutive siblings of C that are 'table-cell' boxes would be enough. 
fantasai, any idea why the phrasing here is what it is?

-Boris
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 15:08:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:46 GMT