W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2014

Re: regarding table-row styling (feature request)

From: Rafał Pietrak <rafal@ztk-rp.eu>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:09:31 +0200
Message-ID: <53AEA26B.6080101@ztk-rp.eu>
To: www-style@w3.org
example update: http://jsfiddle.net/fexp/LfCcW/35/


-R

W dniu 28.06.2014 10:39, Rafał Pietrak pisze:
> W dniu 26.06.2014 01:18, Tab Atkins Jr. pisze:
>> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 2:20 AM, Rafał Pietrak <rafal@ztk-rp.eu> wrote:
> [-------------]
>>
>> We haven't published a Tables Module since then, because tables are
>> complicated magic that nobody wants to put in the effort to actually
>> spec.
>
> Hm. I know that, and in fact, I tried to asked for takeing all that 
> "magic" just a little bit further.
>
>>
>>> So I gather, the intention here was: "if any table element (like TR) is
>>> styled as 'display:something-else-not-table', then we forget the table
>>> styling for that element at all (e.g. no interaction betweend
>>> display-block/display-table is actually defined in standards)".
>> No, the interaction is well-defined.  Table-* display values have to
>> occur in a particular structure, and they'll auto-generate anonymous
>> boxes to maintain that structure if you dont' have it.
>
> OK. So I've taken my case "the other way around". Here 
> http://jsfiddle.net/fexp/LfCcW/6/, I've made a showcase. the case is:
>
> 1. so let's have a DIV/SPAN structure initially (instead of 
> TABLE/TR/TD).....
> 2. .... and go towards TABLE from there, by applying relevant table 
> DISPLAY styling at apropriate levels, and see if we can get the 
> original table layout.
>
> This didn't happen.
>
> psl keep in mind, that (almost) all I'm asking for is:
> 1. When one has a wide table, which want fit into a small-width-device 
> .. by far. Could be "rearranged" into small-width by special layout 
> for it.
> 2. but on the other hand, for computer "normal-width-device" It should 
> be able to retain all the "original" table-styling magic.
> 3. The little extra (td width coordination).... would'd be good, is 
> that all
>
>>
>> So, for example, if you set a TR to display:block, it'll get wrapped
>> in an anonymous table-row and table-cell box.  If you didn't do
>> anything special to the TDs inside of it (so they're still
>> display:table-cell), they'll glom together and auto-wrap themselves in
>> table, table-row-group, and table-row boxes.
>
> I can see (example checks it on jfiddle), that some of the table-cell 
> magic is retained there, but:
> 1. the most important one - that is: the width/height coordination - 
> is lost ... despite the fact, that higher level boxes are requested to 
> "display:table" (and table-row).
> 2 and even more surprisingly, the ".tr td" selector does not catch, if 
> the higher element is not originally "table-related" ... (is it a 
> feature or a bug?).
> .
>>
>>> Thus, although it looks like I can "display" TR as anythinig, in 
>>> doing so I
>>> loose all the coordinated display behavior, that TABLE gives me. Do I?
>> Yes.  Coordination happens within a table layout context.  If you
>> break out of it, you're not coordinating any more.
>>
>>> This is not what tiling-a-table needs.
>> Then I'm not sure what you're asking for; it looked like your example
>> were *semantically* table-like, but didn't actually use table styling
>> at all, and that then led to your question about styling.  Can you
>> elaborate?
>
> I hope the jsfiddle example does show it up. Let me know if it's still 
> insufficiently clear. For tiling to work nicely, it's desirable to 
> have ".tr > *" coordinated across all the ".tr" elements inside ".tbl" 
> box.
>
> [--------------------]
>> If I understand what you're asking for, you can accomplish this by
>> setting all the TRs to "display: table-cell" and all the TDs to
>> "display: inline".
>>
>> However, this does not accomplish what you seemed to be asking for in
>> either of your examples.
>
> Yes it doesn't.
>
> And some of the selectors don't catch as expected (see jsfiddle).
>
>
>>
>> I'm really just not sure what it is you're asking for. Attempting to
>> dictate a solution isn't helpful here, because I can't evaluate what
>> it is you're trying to accomplish with the solution.  Instead, could
>> you just provide examples of what you want to do, and I can tell you
>> whether it's already possible, or will be possible in the future, or
>> likely won't be possible for some reason?
>
> Yes.
>
> So, I'll be doing more examples soon, particularly with wider tables 
> if the one I've just did is not clear anough. For now I'd prefere to 
> do this as: one small example at a time, as I "king of feel" that you 
> see my request as something "big (in codeing) and particular (in 
> application)", while my understanding is the oposit. I may be wrong of 
> course ... happens all the time :(
>
> Summarizing: my goal is to have only styling change the display of my 
> last example (on jsfiddle) into the first one (or the other way 
> around). No matter if going from DIV to TABLE, or from TABLE to DIV.
>
>
> -R
>
>
Received on Saturday, 28 June 2014 11:10:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:22 UTC