W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2012

[CSS21] Should baseline determination of inline-block ignore table boxes? (Was: Re: Multiple baseline question)

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:17:12 +0200
Message-ID: <507172C8.4030904@moonhenge.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Julien Chaffraix <julien.chaffraix@gmail.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, robert@webkit.org
>>>> On Monday 2012-07-23 16:32 -0700, Julien Chaffraix wrote:
>>>>> I have a question about the attached test-case. This is question
>>>>> related to a recent change in WebKit where we aligned our table
>>>>> baseline computation with CSS 2.1 but changed the output of the test.
>>>>> Longer context can be found here:
>>>>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91137
>>>>>
>>>>> Browsers don't agree on the exact behavior in this case:
>>>>> * WebKit (after the change) / Opera don't horizontally align the 2
>>>>> rectangles.
>>>>> * WebKit (before the change) / FF and IE align them.

On 31/07/2012 23:27, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Julien Chaffraix <julien.chaffraix@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It seems that 3 engines (Internet Explorer, Firefox and WebKit prior
>> to the change that prompted this question) were agreeing on the
>> behavior in this case and were ignoring the 'table' for the purpose of
>> determining the baseline [of the inline-block], thus were aligning the bottom edge of the
>> 'inline-block' container's margin box. Considering that it also
>> matches what people would expect in this case, I feel like it would be
>> better to revise the definition of a baseline for 'table' to keep
>> compatibility with existing content. Let me know if that makes sense.
>
> I've updated the definition of table baseline in the Flexbox spec to
> match this behavior (tables still have baselines, but they don't
> contribute this baseline toward the computation of an inline-block's
> baseline).
>
> The definition of the baseline of blocks and tables needs to be pushed
> back into 2.1 errata, though.

The WG should probably discuss this.

Personally I think that Tab's proposal is fine.

Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Sunday, 7 October 2012 12:17:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT