- From: Viatcheslav Ostapenko <sl.ostapenko@samsung.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:37:41 -0400
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 14:46 -0700, Brad Kemper wrote: > >>> It would be useful but it would be very difficult to spec and > >>> implement and would probably create more trouble than it's worth. > >> > >> How about this: > > > >> Positioning on table-column and table-column-group items affect their > >> corresponding table-cell items as though those table-cell items were > >> selected in the same rule. Table-cell items spanning more than one > >> column (as with HTML's 'colspan') are only selected by > >> table-column/table-column-group when they originate in a cell starting > >> in the column(s) of the selected table-column/table-column-group. > > > > > > I would agree with Robert. It is difficult to implement and will be used > > less often than sticky table headers, for example. > > Sticky columns are useful for wide tables, which are less common than > > tall tables. > > Taking into account that sticky columns could be easily workaround by > > assigning position:sticky to every corresponding table cell, I would > > suggest to disallow position:sticky for table columns. > > What makes it hard? Don't TDs already look to COLs for style resolution? Let's say this way: Implementation of sticky positioning for table columns would bring extra complexity, but it will be rarely used. Taking into account that there is simple workaround I don't think it's worth the trouble. Slava
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2014 19:38:14 UTC