- From: François REMY via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:47:32 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Oh, sorry, thinking about this more, I realized the previous statement applies to tables, not to table-cells: > However, in HTML and XHTML1, the width of the ```<table>``` element is the distance from the left border edge to the right border edge. I think the reason is that the width distribution **in fixed layout only** somehow inherits the strange height-distribution twist which the new spec refers to as "[Case 7](https://jsfiddle.net/6ec0hxgx/)" which creates a priority inversion between pixels and percentages when their sum exceeds available space (in that case, percentages are shrank proportionally to their preferred size, so that the sum of pixel-measures and percentage measures equals 100% of the distributable space; while width distribution usually shrink pixel values instead). Here is a test case: https://jsfiddle.net/xz8kbp0w/ (which confirms all browser indeed have this behavior). In your test case, the percentage is reduced to nothing because the distributable space is 0px once you remove the pixel measures. I guess the difference is that Firefox forgot to include padding in their calculation of that excess sum. That being said, the current spec doesn't have the Case 7 behavior defined, neither for height nor width disbribution. I thought it was just a strange oddity but since it applied only to (currently undefined) height distribution, I didn't include that in the spec yet. If it happens it also reproduces for fixed tables' width distribution, we might want to include it sooner, though. -- GitHub Notification of comment by FremyCompany Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/485#issuecomment-247318312 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2016 12:47:39 UTC