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

Re: [CSS21] Question on section 17.5.2.1: optional recourse of the algorithm of 10.3.3

From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:25:41 +0200
Message-ID: <504DDC45.4080602@kozea.fr>
To: www-style@w3.org
Le 28/08/2012 09:12, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu a écrit :
>> Now, if no browser use the algorithm of 10.3.3, then why should such
>> >possibility still be mentioned/remain in section 17.5.2.1 ?
>> >
>> >I am for removing the whole block that starts with
>> >"However, if the table"
>> >to
>> >"margin-right: 2em }"
> Agreed, and in fact no known implementation, browsers or non-browsers,
> utilizes this possibility.

Just for completeness: early versions of WeasyPrint (before 0.8) did use 
10.3.3, but only because there was not automatic layout at all. (The 
fixed layout was always used.)

Recent versions use the first alternative given by the spec:

| A value of 'auto' (for both 'display: table' and 'display:
| inline-table') means use the automatic table layout algorithm.


But this should not influence the spec. I agree with removing this part 
of the spec. It was a nice way out for me when I had nothing like 
preferred widths or shrink-to-fit, but since the automatic layout is not 
normatively defined I could chose to make it "same as the fixed layout":


| UAs are not required to implement this algorithm to determine the
| table layout in the case that 'table-layout' is 'auto'; they can use
| any other algorithm even if it results in different behavior.

This was only a temporary work-around. (Before that still there were no 
tables at all.)

-- 
Simon Sapin
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 12:26:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:00 GMT